Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — BASLE MISSION TRADING COMPANY.

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the properties of the Basle Mission Trading Company have yet been restored to that company; and, if not, when it is proposed that such restoration shall take place?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Discussions with the Basle Mission Trading Company and with the Commonwealth Trust are proceeding.

Mr. GILLETT: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, when it was agreed to re-transfer to the Basle Mission Company the properties held by the Commonwealth Trust, any arrangements were made with regard to dilapidations; what is the amount involved in such dilapidations; and whether liability for this amount will devolve upon the people of the Gold Coast Colony, the Commonwealth Trust, or the British Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): No, Sir. The agreement was that the properties should be restored free of encumbrances. As I understand the situation, the properties are being taken over as they stand and the question of dilapidations has not been raised. The second and third parts of this question therefore do not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

SHOLAPUR TEXTILE UNION (CIVIL PROCEEDINGS).

Mr. THURTLE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if his attention has been drawn to a recent case in Bombay, when the Courts granted an injunction restraining members of the Sholapur Textile Union from inciting workmen by speeches, meetings, or any other way, to strike or continue to strike; and if, in view of the fact that this is the first action of the kind instituted in India, he will, for the information of the House, state the Act under which this action was taken?

Earl WINTERTON: My attention has been drawn to this case. So far as my information goes the suit is a civil suit and one of the points at issue appears to be whether or not the defendants are members of a registered Trades Union. Under Section 18 (1) of the Indian Trades Union Act, 1926, officers and members of Trades Unions are only exempt from civil proceedings on grounds such as those now alleged in the plaint if the Union is registered under the Act. There was at least one similar case before the Act of 1926, but this is the first case that I have heard of since that Act wag passed.

SIR DENYS BRAY (PERSIA).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India for what purpose the Foreign Secretary of the Government of India has recently again visited Persia; whether, during his stay in Persia, he entered into negotiations with the Persian Government or with His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia; what was the object of these negotiations; and what is the reason for their being conducted by Sir Denys Bray rather than by His Majesty's envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Persia?

Earl WINTERTON: Sir Denys Bray merely landed in Persia for a few hours on his way from India to England. He entered into no negotiations.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Denys Bray has developed this habit of always landing for a few hours in Persia and that it makes the public mind rather uneasy?

Earl WINTERTON: It is only right, in view of the charge which the hon. Member has made, to explain that most of the time was spent at Jash when he was flying with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air. Unfortunately they had a forced landing there.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I want to assist the Under-Secertary in this matter. Can we now take it, from his answer that neither the previous visit of Sir Denys Bray nor this visit were anything more than a temporary landing for a few hours?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, I have already explained in my answer that Sir Denys Bray entered into no negotiations of any sort.

WESTERN INDIA STATES AGENCY.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the location, area, and total population of territories placed under the direct administration of the Western India States Agency; are the people in these territories considered British subjects purely or do they owe allegiance to any other sovereign authority; what rights of representation do these people possess as British subjects; what voice have they in the matter of taxation and general administration conducted by British officials; and to whom are these British officials responsible for their policy and conduct of affairs?

Earl WINTERTON: The total area of the territories included in the Western India States Agency is about 35,000 square miles and the population about 3½ millions. The people of these territories are not considered British subjects, but owe allegiance to the Rulers of the various States, and no question arises therefore of their having rights of representation as British subjects. The British officials employed in the Agency are responsible, through the Agent to the Governor-General, to the Government of India. If the hon. Member's question is intended to be limited to petty estates or other areas in which the functions of the officers of the Agency may for various reasons be more directly administrative, I regret that I have not the detailed information that would be required to answer the question.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear, if the British political agents are responsible to the Governor-General, the British Viceroy, what right the people in these Agencies have to approach the same officer with regard to their grievances or to mal-administration?

Earl WINTERTON: I think that I have answered the question on the paper fairly fully in my original answer. It is impossible within the compass of a parliamentary answer to explain the divergent and varying conditions in this Agency.

INDIAN STATES.

Mr. THURTLE: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, if the Government is taking any steps to ascertain the condition of government in the Native States of India before committing this country to any fresh obligations regarding the future of these states?

Earl WINTERTON: Information on this subject is obtained in the ordinary course, through Political Officers.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the Noble Lord think that the present means of obtaining information are sufficient Is he aware that citizens of these Native States have not any means of getting their grievances before the responsible authorities?

Earl WINTERTON: That really deals with an entirely different matter. As the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead), is not present to ask his question—I am not complaining of it, but only referring to it—I have not had the opportunity of explaining what is the exact position of these States vis-a-vis the Indian Government. I do not think that the particular point which the hon. Gentleman asks arises out of this case.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Is it not a fact that the position is largely one regulated by Treaty in this case?

Earl WINTERTON: I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that I always endeavour to give all the information there is in answer to questions, but I rather deprecate attempting to answer questions on matters of high constitutional importance in reply to a supplementary question. The answer which I had prepared in reply
to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil's question which was not asked deals with the matter.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH (for Mr. WALLHEAD): 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of Indian States in which representative institutions for the enactment of laws exist; in which liberty of person and freedom of speech, meeting, and association exist; and the number in which there is a fixed civil list, subject to independent audit, for the rulers and their families?

Earl WINTERTON: In the absence of fuller information than is available here, I regret that I cannot give the figures for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH (for Mr. WALLHEAD): 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will inform the House of the nature of the responsibility of the Paramount Power for the good government of the Indian States and the conditions of intervention by the Paramount Power in the internal administration of the States; and whether machinery exists in any of the States whereby the grievances of the peoples of a State may be made known by them to the Paramount Power or whereby, in case of necessity, they may invoke intervention to obtain the redress of such grievances?

Earl WINTERTON: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the explanation of the rights and duties of the Paramount Power given in the letter from the Viceroy to His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad of the 27th March, 1926, of which a copy was included in the papers presented to Parliament at the time (Command Paper No. 2621 of 1926). As regards the second part, the Political Officers appointed to the various States or groups of States are responsible for keeping the Paramount Power supplied with whatever local information is necessary for the proper discharge of its functions.

Mr. THURTLE: Are we to understand from that answer that a citizen of one of these States has the right to approach the Political Officer with a grievance which he may have against the Ruler of that State?

Earl WINTERTON: It is really impossible, within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question, to explain exactly what the position is. It is a matter of the highest importance, as it affects the relations of the Crown with these States. If the hon. Gentleman wants information on a specific point, he must put a question down. If he will read this letter from the late Viceroy to which I have referred, he will find the case stated there.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any protests have been received from the Singapore Chamber of Commerce or other public bodies in the Straits Settlements, protesting against the proposal to include the cost of the garrison for the new naval base at Singapore in the charges against the Colony: what reply has been made; if he can state the estimated cost of the full garrison annually after the new base, arsenal and dockyard have been fully established; whether any extra charges for the naval and aerial armaments and establishments at Singapore arising out of the naval base will be thrown on the exchequer of the Colony; and, if so, what amount?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Representations have been received from the Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council, the Singapore Chamber of Commerce, and others: and the matter is new under consideration. I regret that I am not in a position to make a definite statement of the estimated cost of the full garrison after the new base, arsenal and dockyard have been fully established. The answer to the remainder of the question is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not answering the last part but one of the question, as to whether any extra charges for the naval and aerial armaments and establishments at Singapore will be thrown on the exchequer of the Colony?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is the last part of the question. "The answer to the remainder of the question is in the negative."

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that there will be no extra charges on the Colony?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Not for capital expenditure in connection with that matter.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Surely for annual upkeep there will be an extra charge, and, that being the case, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman at the same time to say if he is defending the interests of the Colonies as against the War Office and the Admiralty?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The latter would he a very improper question for me to answer.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: It is a very proper one to ask though.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is a matter for the Government as a whole to arrange negotiations. These questions of distribution of expenditure cannot be replied to quite in the form in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts them in the course of a supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (CRIMINAL APPEALS).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the unofficial members of council in the Straits Settlements are pressing for the creation of a Court of Criminal Appeal on the same lines as that which exists in England and the Federated Malay States; and what action the local government and the home Government are taking in the matter?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no information on this subject, but I will make inquiry of the officer administering the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL SERVICE (TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES).

Viscount SANDON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the extent of the deficit as to shipping fares falling on a civil servant in respect of himself, wife, and each child, after receiving the travelling allowances
laid down by regulation, when proceeding on leave at the present time to the United Kingdom from each of the Pacific Colonies, Dependencies, or Mandated Territories, and from the New Hebrides?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with the Noble Lord's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

It is not possible to give figures to cover every case, but the following figures will serve to show the position where maximum allowances are payable:

Fiji and Western Pacific High Commission: Officials serving in Suva:

The cost of a return passage to this country ranges from £211 (first class) to £122 (third class). The maximum leave passage grant under the Regulations is £240 (£120 in respect of the officer, £60 in respect of his wife, and £60 in respect of a child or children).

Tonga—Staff of Agency and Consulate:

The cost of a return passage to this country ranges from £222 (first class) to £133 (third class). The maximum leave passage grant is £273 (£131 in respect of the officer, £71 in respect of his wife, and £71 in respect of a child or children).

British Solomon Islands Protectorate:

Thee cost of a return passage to this country ranges from £228 (first class) to £167 (second class). The maximum leave passage grant is £270 (£180 for the officer, £30 for his wife, and £30 for each child up to two).

Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony:

There is no regular passenger service, and precise figures as to the cost of passage are not available. The fare is approximately the same as for the British Solomon Islands Protectorate. The maximum leave passage grant is approximately £300 (£120 for the officer, £60 for his wife, and £60 for each child up to two).

New Hebrides:

The cost of a return passage to this country ranges from £232 (first class) to £183 (second class).

In the case of officials in the British service the maximum leave passage grant is £348 (£132 for the officer, £72 for his wife, and £72 for each child up to two).

In the case of officials of the Joint Court the Regulations provide for a return passage to Europe in certain circumstances for the officer, but not for his wife and children. New Regulations are under discussion.

In the case of other Condominium officials the maximum leave passage grant provided under the Regulations is £60, but new Regulations are under discussion.

Children under three years of age travel free, and children between three and ten years of age at half rates.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

LOCUSTS.

Commander SOUTHBY: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Kenya Colony has recently suffered from a serious plague of locusts whether anyone was available on the spot to advise the Government of Kenya on the most experienced methods of fighting locusts: and what steps have been taken or are being taken to exterminate the locusts and to prevent a repetition of a similar visitation?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, Sir. I understand that all possible measures were taken by the authorities in Kenya to deal with this plague. Special expenditure amounting to £6,500 was sanctioned for an anti-locust campaign which was vigorously prosecuted by the Department of Agriculture, which includes a staff of entomologists. Also, with the generous co-operation of the Government of Portuguese East Africa, it was arranged that Dr. Fuller, who is now entomological adviser to that Government and who previously had many years' experience of locust work in the service of His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa, should visit Kenya. I understand that Dr. Fuller has visited the principal areas affected, and submitted a full report to the Government. In his speech to the Legislative Council on the 14th August last, Sir Edward Grigg stated that the Government of
Kenya agreed with Dr. Fuller that some permanent organisation is desirable for studying the origin and movements of swarms, and that the suggestions which Dr. Fuller had made in this respect would be considered in connection with next year's estimates.

WATER RIGHTS.

Mr. GILLETT: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a Water Bill for Kenya Colony has been submitted to him for approval containing Clauses requiring every British subject, native or immigrant, to obtain a licence before he is allowed to take any water in the Colony, whether from streams or wells of his own construction, except in utensils which can be carried by hand; and whether he has yet given sanction to this Bill?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. I understand that a Bill dealing with water rights was introduced and read a Second time in the Legislative Council of Kenya on the 22nd of August and was then referred to a Select Committee of the Council.

NATIVE RESERVES.

Mr. GILLETT: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Kenya Colony has accepted a resolution of the unofficial members of the Legislative Council calling for the alienation of more land for white settlement; whether any Bill to this effect has been submitted to His Majesty's Government for approval; and whether, before accepting the proposals, he will take note of the fears of the representatives of the native interests that the land available for the future extension of native reserves will thereby be restricted?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that the resolution referred to was carried in the Legislative Council of Kenya. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The hon. Member may rest assured that in the consideration of any such proposals the interests of the natives would not be overlooked, and I may point out that the mover of the resolution made it clear that the motion confines itself entirely to those areas which could be made available without involving any question of native rights.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR COMPENSATION CLAIMS (MALTESE SEAMEN).

Mr. KELLY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has been arrived at in the matter of awards to Maltese seamen for war damage; and when the amounts awarded will be paid to the men concerned?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Arrangements are now being made for the distribution of German reparation receipts among the Colonies and Protectorates, and I hope, therefore that payment in the cases mentioned by the hon. Member will be made at a very early date.

Mr. KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to what is approximately meant by that early date, as these men have been waiting for a long time?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It has meant years of work as the hon. Member knows, and we are hopeful now that the matter is reaching a conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAILING WALL, JERUSALEM.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now taken legal advice on the action of the Moslems in Jerusalem in erecting masonry constructions on top of the Kotel Maaravi or Wailing Wall in violation of the status quo; and whether he has now issued orders that new construction on this ancient wall be forbidden?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir; I have found it necessary to obtain more precise information on certain points before taking legal advice, and I am consulting the Palestine Government by telegraph on these points.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that when a temporary structure is erected at the foot of the wall for the Feast of the Passover by the Jewish community the police remove it by force, while the Arabs are allowed to put stone structures of a permanent character on the upper courses of the wall?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, I am afraid, is misinformed. It has no connection with the Feast of the Passover whatever, and a
full account of what has happened has been given in an answer by my right hon Friend, and in putting a supplementary question the hon. and gallant Gentleman is giving a misleading view of the situation. The whole question is what exactly is the status quo that we maintain under the clause of the Mandate. There are various questions to be cleared up before high legal advice can be asked on that point.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: It is obvious that we are favouring one religious denomination as against another.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, certainly not. If there is one thing that His Majesty's Government and the Palestine Government are determined to do it is not to favour one as against the other.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that that answer is conveyed to the Government in Palestine?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It has been conveyed again and again, and it is in the terms of the Mandate. It would be very unfair to charge either Lord Plumer or his predecessors with infringing the spirit and letter of the Mandate.

Oral Answers to Questions — ZAMBESI BRIDGE.

Sir SYDNEY HENN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has yet been taken with regard to the construction of the Zambesi Bridge?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I regret that owing to the abnormal condition of the Zambesi it will still be some time before completion of the investigations in hand. Until their results are known, no decision is possible.

Sir S. HENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out some expectation of a tentative date by which this very long delay can be overcome?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: According to the last telegram, the abnormal condition of the river is abating somewhat, but until we get the engineer's and surveyor's report it, is very difficult to fix a date. It is now entirely a question of technical advice.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In view of the serious condition of the coal-mining industry in this country, will His Majesty's Government do their utmost to prevent the completion of this bridge, with British guarantees, so long as the Portuguese labourers in the coalfields there are paid 5s. a month?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Honestly, I cannot give that undertaking. The question of the guarantees under the East African Guarantee Act is being approached not from the point of view of anything connected with affairs in Portuguese territory, but owing to the great difficulty of both native and other producers in British Nyasaland in exporting their products.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman not say whether it is the case that the labourers in the coalfields on Portuguese territory, the development of which is to be facilitated by this bridge, are paid 5s. a month?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Mem-her must put that question to the Foreign Office. I cannot carry in my head figures of that sort relating to foreign territory. I have not seen what they are.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT (COLONIES).

Mr. DAY: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the names of the Colonies or Protectorates that have not yet replied to the communication addressed to their Governors on the subject of the introduction of legislation that would give effect to the Clauses contained in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list showing the Colonies and Protectorates that have not yet replied.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that some of the Colonies have replied that legislation cannot be usefully introduced locally to embody the principles of this Act?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think my right hon. Friend gave an answer to this question last week.

Mr. DAY: What I am trying to find out is how the right hon. Gentleman reconciles these replies with the promises made to this House when the Cinematograph Films Act was introduced, that the Colonies would give certain protection for British films.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should like to look at the exact words. All that my right hon. Friend undertook to do was to draw the attention of the Colonial Governments to the legislation which we were passing and to ask them whether in the local circumstances it was feasible to apply similar provisions in their countries.

Following is the list:

Nyasaland Protectorate;
Somaliland Protectorate;
Zanzibar Protectorate;
Gambia;
Gold Coast;
Cyprus;
Gibraltar;
Mauritius;
Seychelles;
Fiji;
Western Pacific;
St. Helena;
Hong Kong;
Straits Settlements;
Federated Malay States;
Unfederated Malay States;
British North Borneo;
Bahamas;
Barbados;
Bermuda;
British Guiana.

It should be explained that the communication addressed to the Governors, etc., did not specifically call for a reply, but merely enclosed a copy of the Cinematograph Films Act, 192, together with a copy of the regulations issued there-under by the Board of Trade, for information and for consideration as to how far some or all of the provisions of the Act could usefully be embodied in local Colonial legislation in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

SIERRA LEONE (SLAVERY).

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the appreciation expressed by the mom-
bers of the League of Nations during the recent Assembly at the action of the British Government with regard to domestic slavery in Sierra Leone and to the invitation to the British Government to submit next year to the League of Nations a Report upon the results which have accrued to this action; and whether it is proposed to accede to this invitation?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, Sir. The Governor recently stated that it was not yet possible to estimate the full effect of the Ordinance, but he is being requested to furnish a Report on its results in due course.

ARMS (MANUFACTURE).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken to call a meeting of the special commission entrusted with the drawing up of a draft convention on the manufacture of arms and ammunition and of implements of war before the next Session of the Council of the League of Nations, in accordance with the resolution passed at the last Assembly and confirmed by the Council?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): Yes, Sir. The Third Session of the Commission will open at Geneva on the 5th December.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.

Mr. WELLOCK: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the items of expenditure in the budget of the International Labour Office to which he took exception at the recent meetings of the League of Nations Assembly?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on the 15th instant.

Mr. WELLOCK: In view of the growing importance of the work of the International Labour Office and in view of the opinion expressed on all sides of this House on Wednesday last is it not a calamity that the right hon. Gentle-
man should have sought to reduce the budget of the International Labour Office?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There was no reduction in the Estimate.

Mr. WELLOCK: But is it not a calamity that the budget of the International Labour Office should be reduced?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Gentleman is under an entire misapprehension. He had better wait until the White Paper is issued.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action His Majesty's Government intend to take in regard to the Report of the Special Commission on the Constitution for Ceylon?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not yet in a position to make any statement in the matter. A large number of resolutions dealing with the recommendations of the Special Commission have been introduced and debated in the, Legislative Council of Ceylon, and I must await a full report of the proceedings in the Council and also the considered views of the Ceylon Government in regard to them.

Mr. MALONE: Is it intended to deal with this matter before the fall of the Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EAST AFRICA (COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether this House will be given an opportunity of considering the Report of the Hilton Young Commission on East African questions before any action is taken on its basis?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon. Member will refer to the report of the Debate on the Colonial Services Vote for the year 1927–28 he will see that I have already given an undertaking that the Report of this Commission will be available for Parliamentary discussion before any final action is taken upon it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOUVET ISLAND (BRITISH CLAIM).

Sir W. de FRECE: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the British Government has arrived at any decision in regard to the British and Norwegian claims to Bouvet Island?

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement regarding the withdrawal of British claims to sovereignty over Bouvet island in favour of Norwegian claims?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have been asked to reply. After careful review of all the issues involved, and having regard to the friendly relations existing between the two countries, His Majesty's Government have decided to waive the British claim to Bouvet. Island in favour of Norway.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. DAY: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number Of assisted emigrants for the Dominions for the first six months of this year, giving the categories of employment in which these emigrants were assisted?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): The total number of persons assisted to proceed to the oversea. Dominions during the first six months of this year was 29,223. Of this number, 12,132 are known to have proceeded to farm work, 3,660 (women) to domestic employment; the employment to which the remainder, numbering 13,431, proceeded is not known.

Captain BRASS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how this compares with last year?

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid not without notice.

Sir JOHN POWER: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the future arrangements for immigration to Canada?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir, but I hope to be in a position to do so before the House rises for the Christmas Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, now that the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has been given, he can say when the compensation to Irish civil servants under Article 10 of the Treaty will be paid?

Sir BASIL PETO: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council presided over by Lord Reading which was given on the 13th instant; whether he is aware that the case of these civil servants has been before the Courts since November, 1923, and has been the subject of four decisions in which 14 Judges have participated; and whether, in view of the fact that the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council presided over by Lord Reading upholds the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council presided over by the late Lord Cave, of 3rd May, 1927, he will now take steps to see that these civil servants receive the compensation to which they are entitled under Article 10 of the Treaty between Great Britain and the Irish Free State, of 6th December, 1921?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, issued on Tuesday last, on the reference submitted to them as to the correctness of their previous decision in the case of Wigg and Cochrane, relating to the amount of compensation payable to ex-British civil servants in the Irish Free State under Article X of the Irish Treaty; whether he is aware that the Judicial Committee, on their special reference, have unanimously confirmed the previous judgment of that Committee; and whether he will take steps to see that compensation will now be paid immediately to these ex-British civil servants in the Irish Free State who have suffered seriously by reason of the prolonged delays in the payment of the compensation to which they were held to be entitled by the Privy Council so long ago as May, 1927?

Mr. AMERY: The questions arising out of the recent Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are under examination, but I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Sir W. DAVISON: Apart from the important constitutional question involved, can the right hon. Gentleman not see that prompt payment by the British Government, who are wholly responsible, is made to these unfortunate people who for three or four years have not received the compensation to which the Privy Council has twice held that they are entitled?

Mr. AMERY: We shall endeavour to act as promptly as we can, but the hon. Member must realise that it is a very difficult situation. I cannot be expected to say more than that at the moment.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is anticipated that he will be in a position to answer the question?

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid I cannot say.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Was it not in regard to this question that the Whip was taken away from the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto)?

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. MALONE: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Empire Marketing Board is taking any steps to develop trade and commerce with the Irish Free State?

Mr. AMERY: The Empire Marketing Board is limited, by the terms of its Vote, to the furtherance of the marketing of Empire products in this country. So far, therefore, as the development of trade with the Irish Free State is concerned, the Board's activities in the fields of scientific research, economic investigation and publicity are directed to promoting the marketing of Free State products in the United Kingdom in common with the products of other parts of the Empire, including home agricultural produce.

EMPIRE TOBACCO.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN DOYLE: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Imperial Economic Committee on Tobacco has reported; and, if so, whether the Empire Marketing Board has taken the Report into consideration, and with what result?

Mr. AMERY: The Imperial Economic Committee have lately issued a report upon Tobacco, and this Board is now engaging the attention of the Empire Marketing Board. The Board have already issued, in accordance with the Committee's recommendation, a comprehensive list of Empire smoking tobaccos, cigarettes and cigars on general sale in the retail shops. Copies of this list are obtainable post free on application to the Board. Some Press advertising on behalf of Empire tobaccos is being undertaken and a special set of posters is being prepared.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any samples are going to be obtained and placed in the Smoke Room?

Colonel WOODCOCK: Could not the hoardings which are used for pictures at the present time be used for Empire tobacco advertisements?

Mr. AMERY: The pictures on the hoardings are continually being changed. A new set is about to be issued, and a set of Empire tobacco posters will be there very shortly.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the British House of Commons about 3 ozs. of Empire tobacco are sold per week?

Mr. AMERY: As a non-smoker, I am not aware of that fact, but I will draw the attention of the Kitchen Committee to it.

Mr. SANDEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I smoke nothing but Rhodians?

SHIPPING RATES (CANADIAN APPLES).

Mr. GEORGE HARVEY: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, (1) whether he will bring to the notice of the Imperial Shipping Committee, with a view to their taking action, the fact an attempt is being made to restrict
shipments to Britain of Canadian and Nova Scotian apples to certain steamship lines in order to force up freights to a higher level than those operating from New York;
(2) whether he is aware of the pressure that has been brought to bear upon a large number of growers of Canadian and Nova Scotian apples, and that the growers who refused to sign the agreement are being penalised by an extra 20 per cent. freightage; and will he draw the attention of the Imperial Shipping Company to this action of one or two particular steamship lines sailing under our flag, with a view to their taking action in the matter?

Mr. AMERY: Representations from persons interested in the trade, on the points raised in my hon. Friend's two questions, have been received by His Majesty's Government in Great Britain and are under consideration.

Mr. CRAWFURD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is due to the attempt mentioned in the question that the apples offered for sale in the dining rooms of the House are not English?

Mr. AMERY: I can give no information about that.

BRITISH HERRINGS (POLAND).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 42.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, (1) whether he is prepared to take steps with a view to simplifying the present complicated procedure for obtaining a certificate of origin for British herring exported to Poland;
(2) whether the Government have made further representations to Poland regarding the preferential duty at present accorded to Norwegian over British herring?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Since the answer which I gave the hon. Member on July 16th, H.M. Minister at Warsaw has received instructions to make further representations in connection with the forthcoming revision of the Polish Customs Tariff. As regards certificates of origin, I am afraid that. it would be useless to ask the Polish Government to dispense with their present requirements
so long as Poland continues to prohibit the import of herrings (except under licence) from Germany whilst not prohibiting them from other countries.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of urging the acceptance of a certificate granted by one of our own fishery officers?

Mr. HACKING: We have made that representation before, and I am afraid without success.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will you make it again?

MOTOR SHOW, NEW ZEALAND.

Sir W. de FRECE: 51.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that at the annual motor show recently held in Christchurch, New Zealand, only three English makes of motor cars were exhibited, and those not 1929 models; and whether he can take any action to stimulate British participation in motor shows of this nature?

Mr. HACKING: I have obtained a telegraphic report from His Majesty's Trade Commissioner's office in New Zealand on this matter and am informed that at the motor show held at Christchurch from the 3rd to the 10th of the current. month, 20 British motor cars were exhibited as well as two commercial vehicles and ten motor cycles. The date on which cars for exhibition would have to be shipped from this country would prevent the exhibition of 1929 models.

Sir W. de FRECE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether those 20 care were of 20 different makes?

Mr. HACKING: No, I have not that information, but, if the hon. Member desires it, I will obtain it.

DRIED FRUIT TRADE (LABOUR CONDITIONS, LEVANT).

Commander BELLAIRS: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the common desire of all parties to prevent the competition or consumption of sweated goods in this country; and whether he will therefore cause a Report to be made on the conditions of wages, hours, and health conditions in the dried fruit trade of the Levant?

Mr. HACKING: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

EXPORT CREDITS (RUSSIA).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 72.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made to the German Government at any time by, or on behalf of, His Majesty's Government on the subject of the grant of credits to Russia?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADIAN HARVEST (BRITISH WORKERS).

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HAYES:

37. To ask the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the case of two Liverpool youths and two Belfast youths who, having endured great hardships in their tramp from Toronto to Quebec, endeavoured to secure a passage on the ss. "Melita" as stowaways to return home, and for which act were sentenced by a Quebec court to one month's imprisonment; whether he is aware that the sentence was imposed as a lesson to others; that the judge said there was no work there except for farmers and that the sending to Canada of such untrained youths required, investigation; and whether he will take steps to secure the early release and passage home of these youths?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not quite clear that the Secretary of State has any powers as regards a sentence passed by a Quebec Court.

Mr. AMERY: The only information which I have regarding the cases referred to in the hon. Member's question is that which has appeared in the Press. The Dominion authorities in this country have records of all persons who have proceeded to Canada during the past season, and this record does not include the names of any of these four men. I have asked the Dominion authorities if they can supply me with information in regard to these cases showing how and when the men entered Canada.

Mr. HAYES: While appreciating the position of the Quebec Court, may I ask whether the Secretary of State will pay special attention to securing a passage home for these boys in the same way as the returning harvesters?

Mr. AMERY: I must find out the facts of the case.

Sir J. POWER: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many men were sent to Canada for temporary work as harvesters; how many still remain in Canada; and how many more are likely to return?

Mr. AMERY: The total number of men who went to Canada for temporary work as harvesters was 8,449. It is estimated that 2,720 men are still in Canada, hut it is not possible to state how many of these will ultimately return to this country. Over 300 letters have already been received by the Dominion authorities in London from harvesters who have recently come back from Canada expressing a desire to return to the Dominion next spring.

Colonel WOODCOCK: How many of these 2,000 have permanently settled there?

Mr. AMERY: I think most of them have now settled work for the winter.

Mr. LOOKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department taking any steps to keep in touch with the men who are remaining out there?

Mr. AMERY: We are doing what we can, but we have not a large administrative machinery within the sphere of the Government of Canada.

Mr. HAYES: May I take it that the returning harvesters will not be treated as deportees?

Mr. AMERY: Yes; They went to work in the harvest and are coming back.

Mr. HAYES: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the term "deportees" has been used on the other side?

Mr. AMERY: There may have been some deportees, but the great mass of the men are paying their own fares back, in some cases the reduced fare.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that these 2,720 are remaining in Canada, or have some of them gone over the border into the United States?

Mr. AMERY: I have no evidence on the last point. It is possible that some of them are still finishing up temporary jobs and may come back, but I understand a large proportion of them have accepted satisfactory work for the winter.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT.

Commander SOUTHBY: 44.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the Department for Overseas Trade employs canvassers and commercial travellers; and, if so, what is the number of such employés and the purpose of their employment?

Mr. HACKING: We employ no canvassers nor commercial travellers in the ordinary meaning of the words in connection with the London Fair. We do, however, place each Section of that Fair in charge of a permanent official of the Department of Overseas Trade whose normal work is to handle questions relating to the industries included in that Section. These officers have a great deal of specialised knowledge of the industries with which they deal and they of course use their best endeavours to make their Section as fully representative as possible.

MINISTRIES (REORGANISATION).

Mr. BECKETT: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have finally decided not to abolish the Ministry of Transport, the Department of Mines, and the Department of Overseas Trade, as suggested in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement and in his own statement of 21st December, 1927?

Mr. R. MORRISON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is still the policy of the Government to abolish the Ministry of Transport and the Departments of Mines and Overseas Trade as soon as Parliamentary opportunity permits?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I am not prepared to add anything to what I have already said on this subject.

Mr. MORRISON: Does the light hon. Gentleman not realise that it must be very unsatisfactory for those who are employed in these Departments not to know whether they still remain under sentence of death?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member will look at the last paragraph of the answer that I gave on 21st December last, he will see that I said that the matter to be dealt with must be treated as a non-controversial question. There is no chance of that, and there is therefore no chance of anything being done in the lifetime of the present Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman or those behind him will put a question to me in the next Parliament, I will endeavour to give him an answer.

Mr. MORRISON: Will the Prime Minister add to the information that he has given us by saying definitely whether it is still the policy of the Government to abolish the three departments?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but from the answer the hon. Gentleman will see that it is impossible to demolish them before the House rises and that, therefore, the question does not arise.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week he stated that he had replied to this question on 21st December, 1927, and that he was kind enough to send me a copy of the reply, which was no reply at all; and is he aware that the country is rather anxious to know what he proposes to do with these departments in the unlikely event of the Conservatives returning to office?

The PRIME MINISTER: We shall consider whether we shall put it in our election address.

OFFICE OF WORKS (DISCHARGES).

Mr. KELLY: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, the reason for discharging men during the last few months from the industrial staff of the Supplies Division of the Office of Works; and
whether the circular sent out to employers was taken into consideration before these discharges were made?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): Sixteen men have been discharged from the Supplies Division since August. Four of these were dismissed for unsatisfactory conduct, while the remainder had been engaged on work of a temporary nature, on the completion of which there was no further opportunity of utilising their services. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICE.

Mr. MALONE: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether confidential reports are kept on officials in the diplomatic or consular service or connected with his Department; whether these reports are communicated to the individuals concerned; and whether the individual has any means of redress similar to the procedure in force in the Army and Navy?

Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: The responsible authorities are kept fully informed as to the services of all officers connected with the Foreign Office. Where circumstances render it desirable any reports received are communicated to the individuals concerned; no action is taken on an adverse report without the individual concerned being given an opportunity of stating his own case.

Oral Answers to Questions — RADIUM.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increased demand for radium for curative purposes and of the uneconomical character of purchases of small quantities by institutions, he will consider rendering Government assistance in obtaining supplies?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. The whole question of the radium requirements of this country in relation to present sources of supply is at present under consideration by a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Civil Research.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: How long will it be before the report is presented?

Sir K. WOOD: I hope it may be possible to present the report shortly.

Colonel WOODCOCK: In the meantime will the Parliamentary Secretary allow institutions to purchase radium on the same terms as they have already permission to purchase?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think that arias out of the question.

Commander BELLAIRS: Have any representations been made to the Belgian Government as to the exorbitant prices charged in the Belgian Congo?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

FORTH AND CLYDE (CANAL SCHEME).

Mr. COUPER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when the Government last considered the Forth and Clyde canal project; whether a survey has been under taken; and, if so, and by whom, and on, whose behalf?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to, answer this question. Schemes for the construction of a ship canal between the Forth and Clyde have been considered on numerous occasions since the conclusion of the War and up to the present time. As has previously been explained, it is for the advocates of any such scheme to carry out any necessary surveys if they consider that any useful purpose would be served thereby, but so far as I am aware they have not yet carried out any such survey.

Mr. COUPER: In view of the Prime Minister's sympathetic expression that the West of Scotland was an area which should receive attention will the Minister of Transport have a survey made of the proposed line of this canal and an estimate of the cost?

Colonel ASHLEY: Surveys have been made in the past and the estimated cost for the post-War period varied from £14,000,000 to £50,000,000.

Mr. COUPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider another survey in view of the extreme unemployment in the district, which is calling urgently for some consideration?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think a survey was carried out in the not very distant past, and the hon. Member must realise that any survey could not be successfully concluded in order to give employment immediately.

Mr. COUPER: As it is eight or 10 years since the last survey was made, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the present circumstances demand a further consideration?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that the estimate which was made then is likely to be decreased now.

Mr. COUPER: Neither has the unemployment.

Date.
Estimated number of insured persons aged 16 to 61 inclusive.
Number of insured persona aged 16 to 64 inclusive, un-employed (estimated for 1924).
Difference between Cols. 2 and 3.
Estimated number of insured persons aged 16 to 64 inclusive in employment, after deducting from Col. 4 3½ per cent, of the numbers in Col. 2 to allow for sickness* and other unrecorded non-employment, exclusive of temporary holidays.






Including persons directly involved in trade disputes.
Excluding personas directly invoiced in trade disputes.



Thousands.
Thousands.
Thousands.
Thousands.
Thousands.


October, 1928
11,658
1,356
10,302
9,894
9,892


October, 1924
11,146
1,206
9,940
9,550
9,543


* The sickness rate has been taken at an estimated annual mean; it has not been possible to allow for Seasonal Variations.

JUVENILE LABOUR (RED1SIRIBUTIGN).

Mr. KELLY: 84.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of juveniles and young people who have been transferred from other districts to employment in the London area within the last four months?

Mr. BETTERTON: The total number of juveniles transferred from the distressed mining areas to London during the past four months was 195. Separate figures for young people above 18 years of age are not available.

Mr. KELLY: Has this meant a smaller number of London juveniles being placed in employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir.

Captain GARRO-JONES: What steps does the hon. Gentleman propose to take in order to ensure that this increase in the juvenile population of London will

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it was not a survey at all, but a guess?

Colonel ASHLEY: Oh, no. It was a survey.

STATISTICS.

Major SALMON: 83.
asked the Minister of Labour the estimated number of insured persons in employment in October of this year and in October, 1924?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

not add to the grievous overcrowding which exists in the places to which they have gone?

Mr. BETTERTON: There is no reason to anticipate any such result.

Mr. MARCH: Does the hon. Gentleman know whether there is any juvenile unemployment in London?

Mr. BETTERTON: Undoubtedly there is a certain amount, but that does not in the least mean that the boys who are being transferred will take the places of others who would otherwise have got employment.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Does that answer suggest or mean that special jobs have been created for these lads? Where have they come from? Out of the sky?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir. We have been successful in finding in London jobs for 195 boys from distressed areas, who would not otherwise have got jobs.

Mr. BECKETT: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why these jobs have not been produced before for the youths of London?

Mr. BETTERTON: Because, by a special effort, we have been able in many cases to get jobs for these boys which otherwise would not have been given to them.

Mr. BECKETT: Why should not jobs be found for boys already out of work in London?

Mr. KELLY: Will the same staff that was engaged for finding these places for boys in distressed areas continue in operation, so that the London boys may have the benefit of their services?

Mr. BETTERTON: I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN PROPERTY (RECENT STREET).

Mr. LOOKER: 53.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state the reason for the delay in leasing the vacant site on Crown property between Nos. 86 and 90, Regent Street: and whether any negotiations are now pending for the leasing of this site?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): This site has a frontage of only 37 feet to Regent Street and of 33 feet 6 inches to Glasshouse Street, and on account of the small amount of window space available and the heavy cost of building in accordance with the approved design for the Quadrant, it has been difficult to let. It has twice been put up to public tender, but no offer was received on either occasion. Arrangements have now been completed by private treaty for a building lease to date from the 10th October last, and it is understood that the new building will be erected forthwith.

Oral Answers to Questions — TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many County Court summonses have been issued against farmers by tithe owners during the last four years?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am unable to supply the information asked for by the hon.
Member. The Ministry has no jurisdiction in regard to the collection of annuatithe rentcharge by tithe owners.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

ARABLE LAND AND FARM PURCHASES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 57.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of arable land have been put down to grass during the last four years; and how many farmers have purchased their holdings during the same period?

Mr. GUINNESS: The decrease in the area of arable land during the last four years is 817,500 acres. The bulk of this has been laid down to grass, but some part has undoubtedly been taken for building or other non-agricultural purposes. I regret that I have not the data which would enable me to answer the second part of the question.

WHEAT STOCKS.

Sir B. PETO: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any estimate of the stock of wheat in Great Britain at the ports and in stack at the end of October?

Mr. GUINNESS: According to trade estimates, the stocks at ports in the United Kingdom of wheat and wheat flour expressed as wheat on 1st November last were 3,171,000 cwt. Estimates of stocks remaining on farms in England and Wales are made by my Department only on the 1st January and 1st April of each year, and I regret that I am consequently unable to furnish the second figure asked for by my hon. Friend.

PIG PRODUCTION (EMBARGO).

Sir J. POWER: 62.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what increase has taken place in the pig production of this country since the embargo on Continental pork?

Mr. GUINNESS: The embargo on the importation of pork from the Continent does not appear to have had any appreciable effect on the total pig production of this country, but there is evidence that production for the fresh pork market has increased. I would add that the embargo was imposed as a measure of protection against disease and not with the intention of stimulating production in this country.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea as to what the difference in the price of pork has been since the embargo?

Mr. GUINNESS: If the hon. Member will put down a question giving the date at which he would like the price stated, I will try to get the information.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any need now for the embargo?

Mr. GUINNESS: Certainly, there is very serious infection by foot-and-mouth disease in the near countries of Europe.

Mr. W. THORNE: What are the names of the countries?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the result of the embargo, with the falling price of pigs, a tariff on agricultural produce which is not really a help to farmers?

BANKRUPTCIES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many farmers have gone bankrupt or filed a petition with their creditors during the last four years?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The numbers of receiving orders made against farmers in England and Wales in each of the four years 1924 to 1927 were 233, 238, 224 and 290 respectively. The numbers of deeds of arrangement executed by farmers during those four years were 127, 130, 118 and 178 respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEE VALLEY (FLOODING).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 60.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whethere any consideration has been given to the scheme suggested by the consulting engineers of the Lee Conservancy Board for the amelioration of the flooding conditions in the Lee Valley, as being a work upon which a considerable number of unemployed men could be engaged; and whether steps will be taken to confer upon the authorities concerned the necessary powers to proceed with the scheme?

Mr. GUINNESS: A scheme dealing with the River Lee was before my Department some years ago, but it had very little bearing on agricultural interests.
I am always prepared to consider any new proposals, but I am bound to point out that the Lee Conservancy is not a Drainage Authority under the Land Drainage Acts, and any scheme for that River would probably be a matter for consideration by the Unemployment Grants Committee and not by my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE STATUE, WHITEHALL.

Mr. THURTLE: 65.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he has under consideration the question of removing the statue to the memory of the late Duke of Cambridge from Whitehall to some other place?

Sir V. HENDERSON: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. THURTLE: In view of the fact that we now see the military achievements of this Field-Marshal in a truer perspective than was the case when this monument was first put up—

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Mr. THURTLE: Surely I am entitled to ask a question, and to give my reasons for putting it? May I ask whether, in the circumstances stated, the hon. Gentleman cannot find room on the site of this statue for a statue of Field-Marshal Earl Haig?

Sir V. HENDERSON: There is nothing to add to the answer that I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

AMALGAMATIONS.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 68.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can estimate the effect which Part 1 of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, has had in bringing about amalgamations in the coal trade?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I cannot say more than is said on the first page of the Report on this subject presented to Parliament on 5th November.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether it is not true that there is no amalgamation taking place in Durham, and that therefore the Act has no effect whatever, and in view of that difficulty is he prepared to take steps?

Commodore KING: I do not read this question on the Paper as dealing with Durham. The Report deals with the whole country.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that large amalgamations have taken place with little or no effect?

Commodore KING: No, I am not aware of that fact.

Low TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.

Mr. W. THORNE: 69.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that the South Metropolitan Gas Company intend building a low temperature carbonisation plant at the West Greenwich works; and if he can state whether any financial assistance will be given to the company for the erection of such plant?

Commodore KING: I have no information on this subject apart from what has appeared in the Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

COAL INDUSTRY (YORKSHIRE).

Mr. LUNN: 70.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will state the estimated percentage reduction in the cost of production of coal produced in Yorkshire due to the de-rating proposals?

Commodore KING: On the basis of the latest available information, the estimated average reduction in the cost of production of coal commercially disposable in Yorkshire due to the de-rating of the collieries themselves would be about 4d. a ton, or 2½ per cent.

Mr. LUNN: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that that will rehabilitate the industry in Yorkshire?

Commodore KING: No, but what I have stated must not be taken into account apart from the reduction of freights owing to the de-rating of railways.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that 75 per cent. of the rates paid by colliery companies in Yorkshire is equivalent to 4d. per ton?

Commodore KING: Yes, that is the question I am answering. Owing to the de-rating of the collieries it will be about 4d. a ton.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the average rates paid by collieries in Yorkshire are less than 3d. a ton, and that 75 per cent. of that cannot be 4d.?

Commodore KING: I am not aware of it, and obviously it cannot be, true.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that if the anticipations of savings in the cost of production by the de-rating both of railways and collieries are anything like fulfilled, they will place by far the greater proportion of Yorkshire production on a paying basis?

STATISTICS.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 79.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can supplement the estimates in Cmd. 3134 or the effect of the de-rating proposals by figures for all counties in England and Wales?

Sir K. WOOD: It will not be possible to furnish detailed illustrative figures for all counties, but a further White Paper containing full particulars for a substantial number of counties will shortly be issued.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Before the Second Reading of the Bill is taken, will the Minister consider issuing some further explanation of the explanations already published?

Mr. E. BROWN: Will the figures of administration include not merely an estimate based on the first five years' working, but an estimate on the working, on a permanent basis, at the end of 15 years also?

Sir K. WOOD: Nobody knows better than the hon. Member the difficulty involved in making calculations of this kind, but I will see that his suggestion is placed before my right hon. Friend.

FARMERS

Mr. W. THORNE: 80.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received any communications from rural authorities showing the old valuations and the new; and if he is aware that in some cases farmers will be called upon to pay more rates than formerly, although they will be exempt from paying certain rates under the Government's de-rating scheme?

Sir K. WOOD: The Annual Reports which my right hon. Friend has received from the Assessment Committees of those areas in which the new valuation lists under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, came into force on the 1st April, 1928, show the totals of the old assessable values and of the new rateable values of each Rating area within those areas. I have no information which would support the statement in the latter part of the question.

Mr. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the correspondence in the "Daily Mail" and other papers, in which a number of practical farmers are pointing out that, as between the old valuations and the new, they will be called upon to pay more rates, in spite of the de-rating proposals?

Sir K. WOOD: I have seen one letter in the "Daily Mail" only, and an examination of that letter shows that, instead of losing on the transaction, tie gentleman in question would have gained. The hon. Member may be thinking of other correspondence. Perhaps there have been letters in the "Daily Herald" as well.

Mr. THORNE: There are letters in other papers besides the "Daily Mail" —not in the "Daily Herald."

Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information to show that in some cases, although agricultural land is being de-rated, the rates on the farm houses will be increased; and will he take steps to deal with that matter?

Sir K. WOOD: I should like information about that, put as the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his party are opposed to de-rating agricultural land altogether, I do not think I can help him.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what we are opposed to is not the de-rating of agricultural land and putting it on to the houses?

YORKSHIRE (WEST RIDING AND WAKEFIELD).

Mr. LUNN: 81.
asked the Minister of Health what approximate reduction in rates to the general body of ratepayers in the areas covered by the West Riding County Council and the City of Wakefield, separately, will be effected by the passage into law of the Local Government Bill?

Sir K. WOOD: It will not be possible to state precisely what benefit will be secured to the general body of ratepayers of any area by the provision of the Bill until the particulars on which the new grants will be based are available. The best estimate which can at present be made on the available particulars for the year 1926–27 shows that the general ratepayers of the City of Wakefield would have benefited by the equivalent of a rate of about 9d. or 10d. in the £ if the scheme had been in force in that year. As regards the West Riding County, a further White Paper will shortly be issued containing illustrative figures based on the estimated particulars for 1926–27 for a number of counties of which the West Riding will be one.

Mr. LUNN: How is it that in answer to a question regarding Cardiff and Wales, where there is a slight advantage, the right hon. Gentleman could give an answer the other day, but where there is a possibility of the result being other-wise, he cannot give an answer?

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps I may remind the hon. Gentleman that. Wakefield is a county, whereas Cardiff is not.

Mr. LUNN: Wakefield is not a county. Wakefield is a borough like Cardiff. The West Riding is a county council area, and it is as important to get statements regarding those areas, as it is in regard to any borough in the country.

Sir K. WOOD: I have already told the hon. Member that the figures for the West Riding County will he published.

Mr. LUNN: When?

Sir K. WOOD: I think it will be in the course of this week. The hon. Member will then have full in-formation, and I have no doubt that the information, when it is received, will be satisfactory to the hon. Member.

Mr. E. BROWN: Does not the difficulty arise from the fact that it is impossible for the Minister or anybody else to tell the representatives of non county boroughs—who get a secondary and not a primary distribution of these moneys—what the results will be in their cases?

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will convey that to his hon. Friend who put down this question.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Why is it that figures will not he given to the House and information is refused except when a by-election is in progress?

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of the clerk of the West Riding of Yorkshire, in which he maintains, after an examination of the Bill, that after the first five years the West Riding is going to lose £250,000?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir; but the information was a little out of date, and perhaps the hon. Member's is also.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINES, CORNWALL.

Mr. PILCHER: 71.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is prepared to accept the recommendation made to him by the Cornwall Chamber of Mines and four other bodies of expert opinion that the Department do proceed with the further collection of Cornish mining plans and records, including cost books and note books, supplementary to the collection of the plans thereof in the Department's possession; and, if so, whether he will, in the interest of the safety of miners operating in old mine workings, afford facilities for their examination of interested parties?

Commodore KING: The matter is still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — OUTLAWRY OF WAR.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 75.
asked the Under-Secretary of State, for Foreign Affairs, in view of the signature of the Kellogg Pact, whether he is now prepared to encourage the judicial settlement of all international questions of a legal character by signing the optional clause?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the signature of the optional clause is still the same as has been frequently explained in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (ARBITRATION TREATY).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 76.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has taken place in the negotiations for the replacement of the expired arbitration treaty with the United States of America?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) on the 12th November.

Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been in negotiation since June of this year?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As a matter of fact, we have asked the Dominions to expedite their replies.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (SUBSIDY).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 78.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to make any change in the housing subsidy in the near future?

Sir K. WOOD: This matter is still under consideration, and my right hon. Friend regrets that he is not yet able to make a statement.

Mr. MONTAGUE: May we take it that the Department have also under consideration the fact that it has been estimated that there are 700,000 houses short.?

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRO-THERAPY.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 82.
asked the Minister of Health if his Department
is in any way responsible, by means of grants or otherwise, for the use of electro-therapy in the treatment of disease; and, if so, what steps are taken to insure that the treatment is only given by properly qualified persons?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. Electrotherapy is practised in public institutions dealing with tuberculosis, with maternity and child welfare and with the care of the pauper sick. It is a condition of any grant that the Medical Officer using such means of treatment should be specially qualified or experienced, and the treatment provided in a poor law institution is always under the direction of a qualified medical practitioner.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

SUB-POSTMASTERS (REMUNERATION).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 86.
asked the Postmaster-General when he expects to be able to announce his decision regarding the proposed reduction in the remuneration of sub-postmasters for payment of Army and Navy allowances and pensions?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): I propose to refer the matter in dispute to the Industrial Court.

TELEPHONES (STAFF).

Commander BELLAIRS: 87.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can give any figure as to the comparative size of staffs in regard to volume of traffic maintained on the British telephone systems and those of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company?

Viscount WOLMER: The relation of operating staff to the volume of traffic is very similar in the two systems, but the "values" given to the various classes of call differ slightly, and this makes exact comparison difficult.

BEAM WIRELESS SERVICES.

Mr. PILCHER: 88.
asked the Postmaster-General the capital cost of the four beam transmission stations erected, respectively, for the Australian, Canadian, Indian, and South African services?

Viscount WOLMER: The total capital cost of the four beam stations was approximately £242,200.

Mr. PILCHER: 89.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of messages sent or received by the Post Office beam services during the first year of beam operation in the case of Australia, Canada, India, and South Africa, respectively; and, in each case, the number of messages sent or received, respectively, during the first week of operation, during the week ending 2nd April, 1928, and during the latest week for which a return is available?

Viscount WOLMER: As the answer to this question involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Traffic statistics for the period named are not readily available in the form of numbers of messages; but the following statistics of paid words will, I hope, serve the purpose. On the Australian service during the first 52 weeks of its operation 7,306,000 words were handled; on the Canadian service 4,591,000; on the Indian service 10,078,000; and on the South African service 8,375,000. During the first complete week of operation of each service, the number of paid words handled was 53,000, 59,000, 115,000 and 88,000 respectively. During the week ended the 1st April, 1928, the respective totals were 179,000, 133,000, 212,000 and 184,000. During the week ended the 11th November, 1928, the respective totals were 181,000, 113,000, 253,000 and 200,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (CONSTRUCTION).

The following question, stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. W. THORNE:

91. To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of battleships built, or ordered to be built, for the period March, 1925, to March, 1928; the quantity of the work undertaken at His Majesty's dockyards; and the amount of the work given to private firms?

Mr. W. THORNE: Before I put this question, can the First Lord give the information asked for with regard to warships, and not battleships, as stated in the question?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Head lam): I cannot give that information without notice, but I can answer the question on the Paper.

Mr. THORNE: Then I will put it down for another day.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Cannot we have an answer to the question on the Paper?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (MENTAL DEFECTIVES, MIDDLESEX).

Mr. CRAWFURD: 92.
asked the President of the Board of Education why a request by the education authorities of Middlesex, Ealing, Brentford and Chiswick, Heston and Isleworth, and subsequently Twickenham, to open a day school for mentally defective children was refused in December, 1927, and again in June, 1928, there being no such school in any part of this large area?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that the proposal of the education authorities, to whom he refers, to open a day school for mentally defective children has been refused. The Board have, however, suggested that the proposal should be deferred pending the Report of the Special Committee on Mental Deficiency, which I hope to receive at an early date.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Is it not a fact that these authorities have suggested that, pending that Report, there should be a temporary school for these unfortunate children?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not know whether or not that is the case; so far as I know, no such suggestion has been made.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Can the Noble Lord give an approximate date when this Report will be received?

Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid I cannot. but I hope to receive it very soon.

Mr. BROAD: Does the Noble Lord realise that age is a great consideration in these cases?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that there are very few mental defectives in the Conservative county of Middlesex?

Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the Noble Lord give any indication, in view of the interest taken in this question, whether before the Adjournment for Christmas he will be able to make any statement on this Report?

Lord E. PERCY: I cannot make any statement on the Report until I have received it, and I have not yet received it, but I hope to get it as early as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. DAY: 94.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has arrived at any decision for the purpose of introducing legislation having us its object the protection of male persons whose wives' earnings are such as to make them responsible at law for Income Tax in respect to the woman's earnings?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): Pending the Report of the Committee which is now considering the whole question of the simplification of the Income Tax law, I think it best to refrain from proposing to Parliament amendments in the machinery of that law unless they are of urgent importance.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether anomalies of this kind are being considered by the Committee?

Mr. SAMUEL: Oh yes, everything is being fully considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL DUTY.

Mr. E. BROWN: 95.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer it lie will give the best estimate available showing the proportions in which the Petrol Duty is being paid in respect of private motorcars, public stage-carriages, vehicles and engines for industrial and commercial purposes, vehicles and engines for agricultural purposes, vessels and industrial uses other than those of vehicles and engines, respectively?

Mr. SAMUEL: I regret that adequate data do not exist to enable me to give the estimate asked for.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIGHTING SERVICES (HOSPITALS).

Dr. DAVIES: 96.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what. progress has been made by the joint medical services committee of the Navy, Army and Air Force in establishing a common system of costing with regard to hospitals?

Mr. SAMUEL: The matter is still under consideration. I cannot at present add anything to the answer given to my hon. Friend on the 13th June last.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these Services will never amalgamate any of their common services until they are compelled to do so by the Government?

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
It is a tribute to our Parliamentary procedure that we were able to discuss at considerable length many points in connection with a Bill which everybody agrees is necessary and with regard to the urgency of which there is no difference of opinion, and that under these circumstances there was no Division on the Second Reading, there was no Amendment moved in Committee and consequently there is no Report stage, and I have no reason to suppose that there will be any Division to-day. The object of the Bill is two-fold: in the first place, it is to increase, from £30,000,000 to £40,000,000, the borrowing powers in relation to the deficiency fund; and, in the second place, to secure, in certain circumstances, that after two years control shall be retained by Parliament over the financial position as it then is. As the necessity for the Bill is urgent, for the reasons which I explained last week, and as we had a full discussion on the various points then raised, when, I think, all the points that were asked were dealt with, both in the discussion on Second Reading and in the two discussions which we had on the Financial Resolution, which was in identical terms, I think, with the Bill itself, I do not think I need take up any further time of the House in moving the Third Reading.

Mr. T. SHAW: I regret that it is necessary to discuss the question again as to whether the Government. ought to he trusted, in the conditions which exist, with further borrowing power for £10,000,000, but it is due to call attention to the fact that we ought carefully to consider whether we ought to give the Government power to get a further £10,000,000 on the miscalculations that it made last year and whether this is the best way of dealing with national money.
The Minister, in the last discussion, made a very peculiar statement. He said that I had accused him of making a miscalculation, that I had attributed a statement to him that by this time they would have reduced the amount of unemployment to 750,000 and almost wiped out the deficit, and that I had repeated the statement that afternoon, refused to be drawn by the Minister and allowed him to go on floundering in his speech, but I have since taken the precaution to read what I did say in the afternoon, and I cannot find any sentence of that kind or any sentence even vaguely approaching it. As to whether these miscalculations have been made, let me quote one or two statements that really were made. The basis on which the present Bill exists was a number of calculations that had been made, and on which this £10,000,000 will be spent if the House grants it. This is what the Minister for Labour said about: unemployment and its potentialities and probabilities:
I only put it at 8 per cent., which trust may be a possibility within the comparatively near future. I think there ought to be quite a fair chance of a reduction much below that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1927; col. 135, Vol. 212.]
At the time that this Bill was being discussed, the rate of unemployment was, roughly, 10 per cent., and, as the Minister said that he expected a reduction to 8 per cent., and even much below that, obviously, with over 1,000,000 unemployed, he estimated taking over 200,000 off the unemployed list. He went further than that; his miscalculations went to a degree which is absolutely inexcusable. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) asked him if he, could give the number, as it might help him, and this is the reply:
No; naturally I should he loth to prophesy as to what would happen a number of years hence. I said the other day that I was ready to make a bet—a thing about which it am generally pretty cautious—with an hon. Member on this side of the House, who was very apprehensive during the Debate on the Unemployment Insurance Bill. I said I was prepared to make him an alternative bet as to the figure going down to 4 per cent. at any rate, by 1932, or to 3 per cent. by 1933. I offered that the decision should be made either by the Minister of Labour at that date, or if he thought, that I was still likely to be there, by the Chairman of the Economic Society." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December. 1997: col. 135. Vol. 212.]
Even if I had used the words attributed to me by the Minister, they would be ten times more than justified by the Minister's own words. Let us turn to the White Paper which was issued by the Minister. On page 4 it says:
It is not proposed that the provisions of Clause 5 of the Unemployment Insurance Bill shall commence to operate until April, 1929. The percentage rate of unemployment on 25th April, 1927, was 9.3. It may be anticipated that during the year April, 1929, to April, 1930, the 'rate of unemployment will not exceed 8 per cent.
At that moment the unemployment was, roughly, 10 per cent.; the round figures were 1,000,000, so that the Minister's prophecy means that he expected a diminution of 200,000. What is the use, therefore, of the Minister pretending to be indignant about prophecies having been made? I looked carefully at my speech last Thursday, and I found no sentence that bore any resemblance to the sentence which the Minister used.
When he comes to the House and asks for money, the Minister should exercise a little humour and have a sense of perspective. If he considers himself as Minister of Labour to be infallible, he is the first Minister of Labour who has ever thought it. A little knowledge of what has gone on would prevent him adopting that attitude of infallibility. When he spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hay-day) he used the words "He must," and "He would have to." Dictators are not the kind of persons needed in this House. The right hon. Gentleman is neither the Pope of Rome, nor a Mr. Mussolini, nor a Lenin, nor any other dictator who ever lived, and a little sense of humour and proportion would prevent him using language that ought not to be used in the House. We made the suggestion that the Minister should have approached the Chancellor to see if there were a better way of dealing with this question than this continual borrowing, which waterlogs the insurance scheme more and more. I must admit that I cannot see the present Minister of Labour doing that; I would as soon expect a school boy in his first day at school going for the headmaster in his den as see the Minister of Labour go to the Chancellor with a demand for money. So far has the Chancellor of the Exchequer succeeded in im-
pressing the right hon. Gentleman, that he actually considers the Treasury to be rather generous than otherwise, for in discussing the rate of the Treasury contribution with regard to a certain category of cases, he said that the Treasury had been exceptionally generous, because it had paid a little more than it ought to have done strictly in proportion to other payments that were being made. At the same time, the Treasury are paying less than one-third of the cost of the scheme.
We suggest that the time is overdue when the Treasury should face the question of this debt and be more generous' in their contributions than they are now. It is wrong to let the scheme be saddled with this huge burden of debt which grows week by week even if it does not grow, it is a continual hindrance on an improvement in the unemployment scheme. I know that I am like a voice crying in the wilderness, but I suggest that it would be an economic thing for the country if this debt were wiped out and the unemployment insurance scheme were allowed to start with a clean slate. There is no question that every prognostication of a year ago has been falsified. No one knows what next year will bring, or what the financial responsibility of next year will be, and no Minister of Labour need fear to admit frankly that he has miscalculated. Every Minister of Labour has miscalculated, but he has faced it and said, "I have made a mistake," and has taken steps to prevent other people suffering through his mistake. According to these figures, 150,000 people will fall out of benefit before long through the Minister's miscalculation of a state of things which does not exist. The Minister has never told us what the result will be. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) asked a specific question, which has been asked over and over again, as to what will be the effect of this Bill, and the financial effect of these people falling out of benefit, and how many would fall out of benefit.
4.0 p.m.
The Minister has never given us an answer, and I suggest to him that it is not in his own interest to have information extracted from him as if it were extracted with a corkscrew. He would save himself infinite trouble and infinite time if he would give information in a friendly
way, instead of apparently giving it very grudgingly. For instance, he would have saved a considerable part of this speech to-day if he had been tempted to accept what was offered to him last time, a perfectly courteous exposition, and a perfectly courteous request for information, that was answered in a way I do not think was quite as courteous as the way in which he was approached. It would, of course, be foolish to attempt to vote against this credit. Voting against the credit would not help the unemployed. We may be dissatisfied with the methods of the Minister. We may feel that this is not the proper way of dealing with the problem, but to vote against it would simply throw the shortcomings of the Minister on the backs of the unemployed. Consequently, we shall not vote against it.
My final word is this. I hope that it may be possible some day for the Treasury to take a different view entirely of this matter, for the debt finally to be wiped out by a frank and open statement on the part of the Minister, so that the House may know exactly what the position is likely to be next spring. I believe that the House itself by a huge majority is in favour of doing a square thing by the unemployed, and not allowing genuinely unemployed men and women to fall out of benefit through no fault of their own.

Mr. BROAD: In speaking on this, the Third Reading of the Bill, which is to provide £10,000,000 by loan, I think even at this late hour the Minister ought to withdraw it, and bring in another Bill adequately to meet the situation, because there is no reasonable probability of this amount being adequate, if the persons concerned are to get the benefit to which they are entitled, and not to be excluded from their benefit by unfair means. It is on those lines that I wish to speak this afternoon. When the Minister, in his final reply on Thursday, was speaking on this matter, the mentioned some figures, showing that within two periods of three months 339,000 persons have been excluded from benefit, the greater majority on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking employment. On the face of it, those figures either condemn the mass of the working classes of this country as being a lazy lot of wastrels who wish to live on the
dole rather than work for their living, or else they show that the pressure of the department is used, and this phrase is used, to degrade the men who are wronged by excluding them from benefit when they are genuinely seeking work. The Minister told us that they could go to the Court of Referees.

Mr. SPEAKER: A speech on those lines would be out of order on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. BROAD: I wish to reply to and challenge that statement which was made. I was not able to do so on Thursday after the Minister had spoken on those lines. I drew attention to the fact that secret reports are sent in, and the Minister did not reply, but I have information here to the effect—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not make this an occasion for the continuation of the Second Reading Debate or for a Committee stage of the Bill. This discussion is confined solely to what is in the Bill.

Mr. BROAD: I must bow to your ruling, but I would like to ask the Minister, does he deny that secret reports besides the signed reports are sent in to the Referees?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the occasion upon which questions of that kind should be addressed to the Minister.

Mr. VIANT: We are asked by this Bill to give a further grant of £10,000,000. That is evidence in itself that the provision already made by the House is not sufficient to meet the requirements that were anticipated by the Minister himself, and before the House gives its assent to this further grant, we are entitled to ask the Minister a few questions. They have a, very important bearing upon the estimates which the House has passed. If we were an ordinary employing concern add the Minister himself was the manager of a department, and he had come before us and asked for this further grant of money, there is not a shadow of doubt that he would have some very pointed questions put to him. In the first instance, he would undoubtedly anticipate having to give some reason for his having underestimated the position that has arisen. This Horse is entitled to have a reason froth him as to why the estimates given
to this House when the last Bill was passed have not been fulfilled. The second question I am entitled to ask is this. In view of the fact that the strictest economy has been the order of the day as far as the administration is concerned, is this House to expect that greater stringency is to be exercised in the administration of this fund in the near future.
This House ought to be in the position this afternoon, if greater stringency is going to be exercised by the Minister, to refuse this vote, because we cannot review what has taken place in the administration of this fund in the past without feeling that the administration is far too stringent, and that the Minister has endeavoured to avoid a great deal of the errors in his calculations by enforcing more stringent regulations than the situation as far as the unemployed are concerned would warrant. I feel, furthermore, that, we are entitled to have a statement from the Minister this afternoon informing this House as to what his attitude is likely to be in respect to the Measure which comes into operation next year. His calculations, which have compelled him to have this extra grant, are completely wrong, and I hope, at least, he is not going to endeavour again still further to tighten up the administration, and so make the conditions of the unemployed more irksome than they are, in order to endeavour to bring the number of unemployed on the register down to meet his calculations. That would be far too inhuman. Reasons were given during the course of the Second Reading Debate as to why he was compelled to ask for this extra grant. He endeavoured to throw responsibility upon the shoulders of various persons. I think we are entitled to ask that the Minister should have a consultation with some of his colleagues in the Cabinet, and see if the administration of other departments is not at the present moment intensifying the unemployment problem. I will refer for a moment to the large number of building operatives unemployed at the present time.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would not be appropriate on the. Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. VIANT: I was only saying this by way of illustration in pointing out that in the circumstances obtaining to-day we are rather entitled to fear that the numbers of unemployed even in connection with the building industry are likely to increase, and, if this sum of money is to be added to, it is essential that something should be done by the Minister of Health to see that more building trade operatives are not thrown out of employment. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will have that consultation, and while not being desirous of departing in any way from the order of the Debate, I do think that it is a very important point, and has some bearing on the grant which the House is asked to make this afternoon. Recent administration of the Ministry of Health has increased the number of unemployed who will be dependent in a very large degree upon this grant. Their numbers have been increased to a large extent by the administration of the Minister of Health. Therefore, I hope that the Minister of Labour will have a consultation with his colleague, and see if something can be done in the very near future to avert a further increase in the number of unemployed as far as the building industry is concerned. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to give some consideration to the points I have raised.

Mr. SHORT: Although we have had a full day's Debate on this very intricate and important Measure, there are many on this side of the House who still feel that the Minister has not satisfied the case that has been put from time to time. Two points arise in my mind. The first is, that I should expect the Minister to justify the claim for extending his borrowing powers because of circumstances that exist; and, secondly, that his borrowing powers, if granted, should be adequate to meet the situation which will accrue at some later date, possibly 12 months hence. As regards the first consideration, I am perfectly satisfied that the Minister is justified in coming to the House seeking these extended powers. Whether it is the right and proper way to deal with the situation is another matter, but, at any rate, all the circumstances and conditions of our unemployed problem and its possible increase in volume and extent, warrants, I think, the introduction and submission of this Bill.
But when we consider the other aspect of the matter we are entitled to ask him to submit further evidence and figures to justify his faith that this sum of £10,000,000 will be sufficient to meet what may arise some months ahead.
In the Gracious Speech from the Throne it was suggested that the reason for this Bill lay in the displacement of miners from our coalfields. I think that is true, and so far as I am aware, the right hon. Gentleman's Department has not stopped the rot in the mining industry. Pits are still being closed and miners thrown out of work, and in consequence we must look to a large increase in what is now spoken of as surplus mining labour, which in numbers is estimated to be between 200,000 and 250,000. If that be the case, it must give cause for reflection. At the same time the report of the Industrial Transference Board not merely calls attention to the considerable volume of unemployed labour in other heavy industries, but also to the inevitable increase in the surplus of labour there. They make special reference to shipbuilding, iron and steel, and heavy engineering, and foreshadow a possible surplus in the textile trades. In page 16 of their report they indulge in a very doleful criticism of the effect of labour-saving machinery upon labour. They give examples of it, and call attention to the fact that even those industries which are prosperous are not successful in employing labour, but that their prosperity is being reflected in a decrease of labour. If those conclusions be sound, and I think they must be, having regard to the source from which they come, and if they are considered in conjunction with all the other facts in our industrial and economic life, we cannot look forward to a diminution in the numbers of our unemployed. The numbers will rise and fall, and many expect to fall between now and Christmas, but I think that, generally speaking, we must look forward to the existing volume of unemployment being almost permanent, and possibly there may actually be an increase.
A distinguished manufacturer who occupies a high position in the social and political life of Wednesbury, which is in my constituency, recently drew attention to the effect of machinery upon employment, pointing out that with the advance
of science still larger numbers of people would be thrown out of work. Here I would remark that we are not protesting against the extended borrowing powers which are being sought by the Minister. We admit that something must be done, and, though we may quarrel with the methods, we are not opposing these borrowing powers; but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not dismiss this question with a reference to the events of 1926. We never know when the right hon. Gentleman's Government may precipitate another dispute which will create still greater stagnation in our industrial affairs.
There is another aspect of this matter which, I have observed, affects my constituency. A few weeks ago the Clerk to 'be West Bromwich Board of Guardians, which deals with the poor of Wednesbury, made a statement to his Board calling attention to the unemployment in Wednesbury, and he had some critical things to say regarding the administration of the employment exchanges. He contended that a large number of the unemployed who are receiving relief from his Board ought to be receiving benefit from the employment exchanges. He said a large number of Wednesbury workers had had their benefit disallowed because it was stated they were not genuinely seeking work, but ho stated that he had ample evidence that these men were genuinely seeking work, and he objected to the financial responsibility of assisting these people being placed upon his Board. If this state of affairs continues, it may well be that local authorities, through their inability to cope with the problem of poverty, will compel the Minister of Labour to loosen his administration and to withdraw some of the restrictions which now exist, with the consequence that a large number of the unemployed now obtaining relief from the poor law will come back to the employment exchanges for benefit, and this will increase the calls upon the Fund, in addition to whatever extra burden may fall upon it as a, result of the introduction of laboursaving machinery.
I do not think I can be accused of making any extravagant statement, and, if what I have said is likely to prove true, does the right hon. Gentleman think that this sum of £10,000,000 will be suffi-
cient? I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry really had much faith in it. I doubt whether I can at the moment put my finger on his actual words, but I think he estimated that this sum would last for a period of weeks —a short period—and then become exhausted.

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member must not misunderstand what I said. I said that I was not to be taken as making any such prophecy at all. Other words must not be put into my mouth.

Mr. SHORT: I did not want to misrepresent the hon. Member.

Mr. BETTERTON: I am sure you did not.

Mr. SHORT: But although I cannot put my finger on the actual words, I know that the hon. Member did make a calculation that this sum would be exhausted within a period of so many weeks.

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes.

Mr. SHORT: And I think he said, if I recollect aright, that the period would extend somewhere up to May of next year. I wish to know what is to happen when this extension of borrowing powers is exhausted. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister may not be here, he may be appearing before the country, because the General Election may be upon us in the last few weeks of May, and if the fund be then exhausted what will happen to the unemployed? These are considerations which do not concern us only as legislators. Though we are not the victims of unemployment, though we are not suffering, I know that the hearts of Members on all sides of the House throb in sympathy with the great army of the unemployed and those who may yet join it. In these circumstances and in all seriousness I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us further information showing upon what he has based his Bill and the grounds on which he feels justified in asking for this sum of £10,000,000—not, as I have said, that we object to granting £10,000,000 but we do wish to feel satisfied that the calculations he has made justify the request, and, further, that the sum will be sufficient to meet the exigencies of the unemployed 12 months hence.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Hon. Members will find only two considerations to temper their dissatisfaction at having to pass this Bill. The first is the fact that the problem of unemployment, which has worried Members representing those cities where the live register of the unemployed is a very heavy one, is at last in the forefront of the Government's mind. It is obvious that the Minister could not come to the House for power to borrow another £10,000,000 without having first gained the ear of his colleagues in the Cabinet; and therefore we have this advantage, that there will he no likelihood of the Government under-estimating the tragedy which is represented by the figures of the men on the live register. I only wish that hon. Members representing the constituencies which record low figures of unemployment, or no figures at all, could realise how intense is this problem in the black areas, and I wish the Treasury had a representative on the Government benches at the moment, because then we might have some hope that the Treasury would revise its view about the merits of borrowing.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech on borrowing, and I will quote what he said from a report in the "Daily News" and "Westminster Gazette" of last March. The article was headed
Borrowing by the State must he firmly resisted.
In reply to a deputation from the Federation of British Industries, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
But as they bad urged a policy of borrowing, he felt bound to point out to them that this was not the time to weaken or dissipate the national credit strained as it had been by the events of the last. 10 or 12 years, and by the melancholy episodes which occurred last year.
Every form of borrowing impaired the national credit. There were demands for all kinds of developments—the Post Office extension, for electricity, for London bridges, for roads, for Imperial development, for guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act. But it must be remembered that everything taken in credit, just like everything taken in cash, was taken out of the common store.
The deputation had referred to the need for telephone development. But even in a remunerative service, he said, it did not follow that uncontrolled expansion would be attended by profitable results.
In present circumstances their policy must be, not the dissipation of their national
credit for schemes of expansion and State-impelled expenditure, but the careful husbanding and frugal employment of that credit. There had been a deficit last year, and there would, of course, be a deficit this year. Projects for fresh borrowing must be firmly resisted, and an earnest effort continually made to pay off the obligations of the State.
This new demand for borrowing shows how narrow and partial has been the Treasury view from the beginning of the tenure of office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Instead of sending the Minister of Labour down to the House asking for powers to borrow an additional £10,000,000, surely it would have been far better to put men to work on remunerative capital development than to keep them standing idle in the market place saying "No man will hire us" and drawing a bare existence in the shape of unemployment pay. This Bill ought to awaken the national mind. When we find this great army of 1,250,000 of our fellow countrymen are wanting work, surely that is a time for a sustained effort, not to borrow money to the extent of £40,000,000 in order to keep men idle, but to use the powers of the State to carry out a policy of national development.
I wish to thank the Minister of Labour for sending me the memorandum showing some of the difficulties of making an adequate examination of the effect of the 30 contributions rule up to next April. If the right hon. Gentleman before next April is in a position to make a simple investigation in relation to representative exchanges to see what the possibilities will be when the new rule comes into operation, I hope he will not overlook the Employment Exchange at Leith. I say that not because it is my own constituency but because Leith has been singularly unfortunate. Not long ago it was made part of the City of Edinburgh. If Leith had remained on its own, it would have remained a necessitous area, but as it is now a part of the whole city, it does not come within the average figure which is reckoned as a necessitous area. While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for sending me a memorandum, I hope when he makes his promised examination of this question—it has a bearing on this Fund, because as the men go off and on the Fund there will be a deficit or a surplus—he will take Leith Employment Exchange into consideration. Of course, I
shall vote for this sum of money, but I should vote for it with a lighter heart if it were going to be spent upon productive work instead of upon unemployment benefit.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to add only a very few sentences to what has been said in this Debate. I will not follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) who surprised me by his references to wagers made across the floor of the House. I do not like to hear these references to Ministers laying odds, and I expected my right hon. Friend to condemn such things in this House. What stands out in this Bill is that the Government expect a continuance of an abnormal state of unemployment, and they seem to be in a fatalistic mood. On the Second Reading of the Bill the Minister of Labour took up that standpoint, and the Government are meeting that attitude by borrowing more money. They tell us that they hope that, by more careful administration, the deficit will be gradually reduced.
I make this suggestion to the Minister of Labour. I do not think that his staff, is adequate in the provinces for the administration of the Fund. The staff is inadequate because the men have to be dealt with in great numbers. Sometimes they are dealt with rather harshly, and there is a tendency on the part of the principal officers to say. "We will wipe these people off the register," or else there is lax administration, and in that case the people get relief who are perhaps not entitled to it. in consequence of the staff being inadequate to deal with such large numbers there is often great hardship inflicted on the men themselves who are only too anxious to take a job at once, but if they are kept waiting for long periods before they can be dealt with by an inadequate staff of officials, they get hungry, cold, tired, and miserable, and very often they suffer from exposure to the weather through inadequate accommodation. I know the Minister of Labour has promised to devote his attention to the administrative problem. My view is that it would be economical in the end to have adequate unemployment exchange staffs.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of administration which we cannot discuss on the Third Reading.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I only desire to make that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. We have heard a good deal in this Debate about unemployment and the relief of it by the St. Davids' Committee. I wonder if the Minister of Labour has seen the latest pronouncement by Lord St. Davids' which appeared in the "Daily Express" on Saturday. If he has not I would recommend him to read the remarks of a man who, after all, has done a great deal to help to relieve the problem of unemployment, within the limits set him by the Treasury. I think Lord St. Davids' indictment of the Treasury is the most damning that we have had.

Mr. BATEY: The Parliamentary Secretary told us that it was to the credit of the House that there had been no divisions on the Bill and no Amendments. I should like the hon. Gentleman to remember that we are not satisfied with this Bill. No man who takes an interest in this Fund and a keen interest in employment can be happy with the thoughts given rise to by this Bill. The fact that we have this Bill before the House is in my opinion due to what I believe to be a wrong policy adopted by the Government towards this Fund. The Government have pursued three policies which have been wrong. The first wrong policy they adopted was not carrying out their legislative proposals of 1925. The second was not making the machinery of the Bill sufficiently expansive from 1927 upwards. The third is in using the Fund belonging to the Unemployment Fund for other purposes than that of relieving unemployed men. This House spent a lot of time discussing the question of unemployment when the Bill of 1925 was under discussion. In that Measure the House gave power to the Minister of Labour to increase the State contribution, which at that time was 6¾d. per person employed per week. At that time the House gave power to increase the amount by 1d. per week. There was then only a little over £4,000,000 debt on the Fund, and although the debt was so low the Minister of Labour got power to increase the State contributions by 1d. per week.
Last Wednesday I asked the Minister if he could give the House an estimate of the amount of money yielded by that extra 1d. per week. I know that there
was not much time for the Minister to give me the information on Wednesday night and I am not complaining, but I should like the Minister to-night to tell us if the Government had carried out their original proposals what would have been the state of the Fund to-day as compared with the position in which we now find ourselves. Instead of increasing the State contribution as was proposed in 1925, we find nine months afterwards the Chancellor of the Exchequer acting like Dick Turpin, and instead of increasing the State contribution to the Unemployment Fund, he reduced the State contribution under the Economy Bill from 6¾d. per person to 1d. per person. I believe that the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that respect is responsible for a great deal of the trouble in which we find ourselves to-day. I have been looking up the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he moved the Second Reading of the Economy Bill, and when he was asking for power to reduce the State contribution from 6¾d. to 6d. he said:
He prophesied that the solvency of the Fund would be in no way affected.
This Bill is the answer to the prophecy made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1926, and we find to-day that the solvency of the Fund has been affected by the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In order to justify his raiding of the Fund in 1926 the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
There would be a stricter supervision over the Fund.
If there has been a stricter supervision it does not show itself in the state of the Fund to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also said:
Whilst there had been a stricter supervision of the Fund the better position of the Fund was mainly through the improvement in trade.
As a matter of fact, there was no improvement in trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1926 used three arguments to justify his raiding of the Fund, which since then have been falsified. I not only want to complain that the Government have not carried out their legislative proposals of 1925, but also that last year, when they passed their Unemployment Insurance Bill, they made the machinery so expensive as compared with what it was before. Under that
Measure, the cost of administration between 1927 and 1928 was increased by no less than £228,068. That was an enormous increase, which, with the Fund in the condition in which it is, cannot be justified. Had that amount been used for paying benefit instead of in cost of administration, it would have provided 3,655 unemployed men and their wives with 24s. a week for a full year, and the money would have been better spent in that way. Not only was the total cost for administration increased, but last year the Minister also increased the cost of the courts of referees. In 1927 these only cost £26,000 and that was increased by the Bill of last year to £200,000. That increase in the cost of the courts of referees cannot be justified either. The amount again would have provided over 3,000 married men and their wives with unemployment benefit at the rate of 24s. a week for a full year, and again the money would have been far better spent in that way than in increasing the cost of the courts of referees. Personally, I think it was most unwise, in the Bill of last year, to increase the cost of the courts of referees, because we find that the money-, instead of being given to unemployed men, is being given to solicitors, who have been put in the chair—

Mr. SPEAKER: These remarks would be more suitable for a Debate on the Estimates.

Mr. BATEY: I am discussing, the Fund and the state of the Fund, and the reason why it is in the position in which it is: and I am submitting that it would not have been in this position had it not been for the increase in expenditure for which the Government obtained powers last year. If you are going to rule that, in following that line, I am out of order, I had better sit down altogether.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): As no other Member of the House appears to wish for more information, perhaps I might be allowed to reply quite briefly to some of the points that have been made, and I hope I shall not be trespassing too far beyond the rules of Order if I answer the statement of the last speaker by saying that the difference in cost between the
system of courts of referees which existed before and the more extended system of the present day was estimated at about £200,000. That estimate was given, of course, as we quite frankly admit, without our being able to make sure what the expenditure would be under a new system. It is never possible to calculate the expense of a quite new system with the same accuracy with which one can forecast the next year's expenses of a system already existing. As an, outside figure, £200,000 was taken. I am informed that the excess over the previous system that is actually likely to be reached is about £100,000. That is the price which has to be paid for doing away with the Ministerial discretion. Nearly all hon. Members opposite wished to have the system abolished under which Ministerial discretion could he exercised. It was done away with under the Bill, hut, in place of that, another system had to he set up. The only other system that could be set up is one by which you could get a legal trial of the case without any discretion entering into it. That was the origin of the present system of courts of referees, and additional expense was quite unavoidable. As I have said, the amount of it is likely to be considerably less than the estimated outside figure.
As regards one or two of the other points, I am glad to deal with them. The first is the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), my predecessor. I do not want to enter again into violent controversy with him, but, when he accuses me, in his somewhat full-blooded way, of not being ready to admit that I could possibly he wrong, he seems to have selected certain passages of my speech, and omitted others. I would ask him to read through the statements I made somewhat more in detail. He will there find that I said that our belief, and it is still my own belief, was that the figure might quite well fall during the year beginning in April, 1929, and that a further reduction was possible afterwards; but I went on, as I pointed out the other day, to say that:
If … our expectations are not realised, it will be perfectly possible to deal with the situation before that time arrives in 1929.
Then I added that
I quite purposely and deliberately asked for the interval before the beginning of the 30 contributions test, in order that, if there should be any upset in our expectations, there should be time to reconsider and modify our proposals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1927; Col. 177, Vol. 211.]
In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman will I think admit that I never made any of those pretensions to infallibility which he attributed to me. I would make one additional remark with regard to his request as to giving information. I have been ready to give information fully and freely when it has been asked for, but, of course, if I am asked to give information about a point on which I realise that at the moment no reliable information is forthcoming, then the right hon. Gentleman is asking me to commit a sin for which he himself would like to haul me over the coals afterwards. I would not like to bring before the House a figure which I knew, and might point out at the time, could not be the subject of any correct estimate. Then, later, just because it was put forward officially, hon. Members, opposite, or on this side, or outside the House, might base their expectations upon it and come to me and say, "Why did you put forward a figure which is not only falsified by events, but which at the time you knew would be so falsified?" That is the reason why, as the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) knows quite well, I said to him that at this moment I could not give any estimate that was worth calling an estimate as to what would be the effect of the operation of the 30 contributions rule, but that I hoped that, before the arrival of the time when it would be put into effect, I should be able to lay before the House information which would enable them to form an opinion on the subject.
So much for that point, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember what happened in the Second Reading Debate. To-day he has gone off into quotations from the rest of my speech, but he has not either substantiated or withdrawn the quotation which he did make about me, and which I denied. I have not the report at hand at the moment, but the right hon. Gentle-
man knows quite well the point to which I refer, when he charged me with having made a direct statement that I believed that at this moment the unemployment figures would stand at 750,000. I never did, and the right hon. Gentleman could never find any statement of mine which really authorised such a charge on his part. I hope that in these circumstances he will withdraw; I think he should do so unless he can find such a statement. I say quite frankly that I have always been prepared to admit, and the quotations which I have given show that I am prepared to admit, that no forecasts with regard to unemployment are infallible. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman puts into my mouth a perfectly definite forecast of this kind which I never made, I hope that he will either withdraw it or give me some reason in substantiation of what he says.

Mr. T. SHAW: The right hon. Gentleman made this statement. Speaking of me, he said:
The right hon. Gentleman has attributed to me the statement that by this time we should have reduced the figure of unemployment to 750,000 and almost wiped out the deficit, and he has repeated that statement this afternoon."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1928; Cols. 1238–39, Vol. 222.]
I have looked through my speech, and I cannot find the statement.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the right hon. Gentleman did not repeat it that afternoon, I apologise for having charged him with repetition, but the original statement is there in which he said:
He wants credit to the extent of £10,000,000 entrusted to his Department, on, I suppose, as solid a basis as he had last year for the Bill which he introduced founded on calculations that by this time we should have 750,000 unemployed and have almost wiped out the deficit." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1928; Cols. 839–840, Vol. 222.]
I have never introduced any Bill whatsoever based on that calculation, nor have I made it myself. I ought, perhaps, to stand in a white sheet for having suggested a bet or wager in this House with regard to unemployment. I can only make this confession to the House. I have never concluded any of these wagers with regard to unemployment save one. I concluded one with the right hon. Gentleman himself, for
the sum of half-a-crown. I keep the coin representing that, which he duly paid over, as a cherished possession, which I hope will not be taken from me.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Did you pay Betting Duty on it?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: With regard to the questions which were put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), they are, as I think he himself realises, not quite in point on the Third Reading of this Bill, but perhaps he will communicate with me about any inconveniences that are suffered at Hull. We are anxious to do our best to see that everyone who is unemployed should be given all reasonable facilities.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will call for the file of my correspondence with him or the Parliamentary Secretary, where he will find the whole subject dealt with. Some improvement has taken place, but there is still room for improvement.

5.0 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is perfectly impossible, of course, to get perfection in this world, but we try to approach it by degrees, that may he slower or quicker according as opportunity makes it possible for us. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and another speaker on the same side referred to the stringency of the conditions, and my hon. Friend and myself have been blamed for making conditions that were too stringent in regard to the number which I said in my speech had been lately disqualified. If the hon. Member who made that complaint will refer to the conditions of the past he will find that that number of disqualifications, broadly speaking, has taken place under different Administrations at all times. It is no proof of any callousness. It is no proof of any wish of the present Administration to grind down the faces of the unemployed. In 1924, the disqualifications amounted to between 500,000 and 600,000. The disqualifications of the latest quarter to which I alluded were just under 130,000, and he will see, therefore, that on the whole there is comparatively little difference in the amount of disqualification for
benefit which has taken place between one year and another. The object, in his opinion of the supposed stringency, was to make the money last further, and therefore to make a limitation of the extended borrowing powers to £10,000,000 adequate. The answer is this. There is no intention of any kind to make the conditions stringent in order to eke out the money further. The reason we ask for £10,000,000 is so simple that unless hon. Members opposite were convinced that the Parliamentary Secretary and I were both ingenuous people they would hardly credit it. It is this. We believe that £10,000,000 ought to be enough to last us through the greater part of next year. We have no particular date in front of us as to the time when it will come to an end. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think it would come to an end about May.

Mr. SHAW: At the present rate, which is perfectly true.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At the present rate, calculated arithmetically, and he said he expected the rate would be faster rather than slower. We expect it to last longer than that without putting any particular date to it. That no mortal could do. We put a limit to the £10,000,000, and we inserted the latter part of the Clause simply in order to enable this House, whichever party is in power, to keep control and to keep a review over the whole question of unemployment, so that if an extension of the loan, or any other means of meeting the deficit, was necessary, the House could rest assured that it would have the power to review the situation again. That is the one true and absolute reason why we were content with the figure of £10,000,000, and why we were anxious to have the Bill couched in its present form. I have answered these points briefly but I trust it will be enough to show hon. Members that I am willing to give the information that is required, and to enable them to give the Bill its Third Reading.

Mr. BROAD: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he deny that secret reports are made, to the detriment of the men?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The right hon. Gentleman has sat down.

Miss WILKINSON: Will any part of this £10,000,000 be used for the opening of sub-exchanges where the men have a tong way to walk? In some cases employment conditions improve in a certain area, and a sub-exchange is closed. Unemployment gets up again and then the men have a long way to walk. I have had considerable correspondence with the Department about the case of a man in my constituency who had to walk between one and two miles. They cannot afford to pay a 2d. omnibus fare. There is also the case of the men who have to sign every day, and it is a great handicap in regard to their getting work. The case is much worse in the neighbouring constituency of Cleveland, where some men have to go five miles before they can sign on.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Subject to what the Minister may say, I should have thought this was a matter for the Ministry of Labour Estimates and not for this Bill. Unless this is relevant to the Bill I cannot allow the hon. Lady to go on.

Miss WILKINSON: On a mint of Order. I do not want to embarrass the Minister. I only want to ask whether part of this sum could be used for the improvement of facilities.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: These points are connected with the Third Reading of the Bill by a thread of greater or less slimness as the case may be. But I am always glad to give such information as I can. The opening of sub-exchanges is a matter that comes under the general administration of the fund. The whole general administration costs, as well as benefits, are paid out of the fund as a whole, and therefore it can be said that enabling the fund to meet the calls upon it enables it to meet that call should it be justified as well as others. As regards the other point, reports are furnished to officials of the Court of Referees, but I am not sure that they justify the phrase "secret reports," which is a sort of innuendo, as if something was done behind someone else's back. This is a rather technical point which has nothing very immediately to do with the Third Beading of the Bill. Therefore if the hon. Member wishes to put me a question in detail. I will answer it, but speaking on
the spur of the moment, subject to correction, my belief is that where any official of the Exchange has interviewed an applicant, they let the applicant know what is in any statement they make.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that this is a question of administration only, and, if this matter is to be pressed, it will have to be on another occasion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS TRADE [GUARANTEES].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to amend the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1926, by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, the period within which new guarantees under those Acts may be given and by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, the period during which guarantees given under those Acts may remain in force."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Hacking.]

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): This financial Resolution is the forerunner of a Bill, which will be known as the Overseas Trade Bill, which will be introduced as soon as possible after this Resolution has been agreed to. The Bill and the Resolution are necessary in order to redeem the pledge given by the Prime Minister on 24th July last, when he said the Government proposed in clue course to institute legislation extending the scheme of export credits for a further two years from September next year. He added:
We shall also set up an inquiry into the administrative expenses connected with the scheme, as recommended by the Estimates Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July. 1928; col. 1138, Vol. 220].
It will be noted that the Prime Minister gave two pledges on that occasion, first that the export credits guarantee scheme would be extended for a further period of two years, and secondly, that a Com-
mittee of Inquiry should be set up. In April of this year the Select Committee on the Estimates, a Committee appointed by this House, reported, in a report issued on 30th April, as follows:
As the result of a searching investigation, your Committee have come to the conclusion that the present facilities given by the Department are of great practical advantage to the development of the export trade of this country.
This same Committee made several recommendations, amongst them one that an expert investigation should be made into the administrative expenses of the Department with a view to their reduction. There were other recommendations of what I might perhaps call a minor character, such as the consideration of increasing scale of premiums and also regarding the presentation of accounts, and the form of their presentation to the House. If we are going to set up a Committee of Inquiry into administrative expenditure, these other matters should also obviously receive the consideration of the same Committee of Inquiry. The demand of the Estimates Committee was for an expert investigation, and the Government have therefore decided to appoint a Committee of Experts of three persons. Sir Otto Niemeyer, late Controller of Finance at the Treasury, and a member of the Financial Committee of the League of Nations has agreed to be Chairman of the Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is he the head of the Agricultural Bank too?

Mr. HACKING: Not to my knowledge, but he is connected with the Bank of England. The second member will be Colonel the Hon. Sidney Peel, who was at one time a Member of the House, and was at one time financial adviser to the Foreign Office. Colonel Peel is at present acting in an honorary capacity as Chairman of the Advisory Committee of the Exports Credit Guarantee Department. The third member will be Sir William Pleader, one of the foremost chartered accountants in the country, and an ex-President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Sir William has had great experience of Government Committees. The Secretary will be Mr. E. J. Holford-Strevens, of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. I am confident that the constitution of the Committee will
command respect both here and also amongst the business men of the country. The work of the Committee will be very technical, and possibly difficult for the ordinary intelligence to comprehend quickly and completely. That is why only experts have been asked to serve. I hope the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) will not be very upset about its constitution. I hope she will not think it is another injustice to her sex. There are a few walks of life in which men may safely tread without undue competition from the ladies.

Miss WILKINSON: I was being quite quiet, but the hon. Gentleman has asked for it. Is he not aware that one of the most brilliant members of the National Debt Commission was a lady whose financial experience has commanded respect from the House on previous occasions?

Mr. HACKING: Yes, I am quite aware of that fact, but I do maintain that there is not a great number of ladies who can carry on investigations of this kind, and I understand that that lady is very busily occupied at the present time. All I was suggesting was that there are not many walks of life at the present time that men can safely tread, and men may still be able to remain members of an expert committee on credit insurance. The investigations will start almost without delay and the terms of reference will be as follows:
To consider generally the administration of the Exports Credits Guarantee scheme in the light of the recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates on the Export Credits Guarantee Department and to recommend what changes, if any, are necessary in the present system of administration and presentation of accounts, and to suggest any changes in the general working of the scheme which are likely to facilitate the final transference of the business from Government control.
I ought to say a word about the concluding sentence, for many Members of the House perhaps disagree with that wording in the Terms of Reference. The views of past Governments and also of Committees that have considered this question of export credits and also my own views have always been that sooner or later this business of insurance against non-payment of debts should be handed over to private enterprise. Unfortunately, private enterprise is not yet
providing the facilities which we offer and which are demanded by the trading community of the country. We are gradually proving, however, to private enterprise that this form of insurance is a sound business proposition. Certain insurance companies are coming much nearer to our present terms and conditions. Just as they are working towards us, so we must move in their direction, and that is why the Committee of experts are asked to suggest any changes in the general working of the scheme which will facilitate the final and ultimate transference from Government control. So much for the fulfilment of the Government pledges.
Before asking the Committee to pass the Financial Resolution, the effect of which is to give a longer lease of life to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, the Committee will naturally like to know something of the history of the Government's credit insurance scheme and of the nature and of the volume of the business which we have done. With regard to the history of the scheme and the nature of the business, I thought it desirable that nothing should be kept back from the House, and that every Member should be in full possession of the details of the facilities which we are offering. I have therefore circulated a booklet entitled,
An explanation of the Facilities provided by His Majesty's Government for insuring and financing credits for exports.
I hope that every Member of the House has had a copy of that booklet and that during the week-end he has taken the trouble to read it. If he has, it will save probably a large proportion of the speech which I should otherwise have to deliver.

Mr. MAXTON: Mine only came to-day.

Mr. HACKING: Better to have it late than never. I am sure that it is an interesting document and that the hon. Member has not wasted any time before reading it and that he is already in possession of the facts stated in the booklet. It is unnecessary to enlarge upon this official explanation except to draw special attention to contract "B," which provides, as the Committee will see, both the financial and insurance facilities. The
exporter frequently desires two things. In the first place, he desires definite assurance that his bill, or, at any rate, a large proportion of his bill, will be met at maturity. Secondly, he desires to be able to borrow money in the meantime, before his bill is met, on favourable terms in order to carry on his business. Our latest scheme, known as contract "B," gives these definite facilities. It gives a definite assurance to the exporter, and it also gives an unconditional guarantee to the exporter's bank. The exporter is protected against the risk of loss through bad debts, and he is also given facilities for obtaining advances from his bankers at low rates of interest and without recourse to himself: On the failure of the foreign importer recourse is to the Department and not to the exporter. If the foreign importer fails, the bank is paid by the Department. The bank has recourse to the Department and not to the exporter, which is a very valuable concession to the exporters of the country.
The new contract "B" has only been in operation for a few days, and it is impossible to say yet how much it will be used by our exporters. It has, however, had a truly magnificent reception both by the traders and by the banks. Almost daily I have had letters of appreciation from the big banking people of the country saying how much they appreciate the facilities we are giving to them and the exporters of the country, and that they anticipate, by the numbers of forms for which they have been asked, that there will be a big demand for these facilities. It will fill a big need, and I believe that this contract "B" will be of very great benefit to those who are engaged in the export trade. The scheme has been devised and worked out by the manager and the staff of the Export Credits Guarantee Department., in conjunction, of course, with the big bankers in the country. I wish to pay my own personal tribute to all those who have striven so enthusiastically to make the new form of contract of real practical assistance to those who desire to use it. As I say, it is too early to give any results in connection with contract "B," but the Committee have a right to know something of the financial results of our efforts under the previous scheme. It will be remembered that in 1926 an expert Committee, after hearing much evidence, reported upon the desirability of the State
continuing a scheme for credit insurance. The conclusions that that Committee reached were:
That a demand existed for the insurance of credits for export trade.
That the then existing facilities were not adequate to meet the demand.
That the Government's guarantee scheme should be continued, but continued only subject to certain modifications being made.
A new scheme was devised as a result of that Committee's Report. It was introduced in July, 1926, based upon the Committee's recommendations, but it was unfortunately born into this world in very unfavourable circumstances. During the first nine months of its existence, as the Committee will remember, it was hampered by the coal stoppage, the aftereffects of which continued to be felt for a very long time. Actually this scheme, devised as a result of that inquiry, has only been in operation under anything 'approaching normal conditions 'for a period of about 18 months. Since July of last year, up to the 3rd of this month—a period of, approximately, 70 weeks—contracts have been issued to the face value of £3,729,000, of which the Department's liability has been £2,271,000. The face value of the contracts issued during the past live weeks has been £489,000, or at the rate of nearly £100,000 a week. Some idea of the expansion of the Department's turnover may be obtained from the following statement: In the financial year 1925 we gave guarantees for £407,000. In 1926 we gave guarantees for only £307,000, the reason for the decrease, of course, being very largely due to the coal stoppage. In 1927, we gave guarantees for £1,025,000. For the six months ending September this year—they are the latest available figures—we gave guarantees for £714,000, or at the rate of £1,428,000 a year. These figures represent, not the face value of our guarantees, but they represent the Department's liability on the bills guaranteed, and I suppose that on an average we guarantee about 60 per cent. of the face value.
These figures are in themselves fairly satisfactory. They are certainly satisfactory inasmuch as they show a progressive increase during recent months, but the Committee will naturally desire to know how far this business is being conducted at a profit or at a loss to the country as a whole. I am afraid that my figures are
not quite as satisfactory when I come to give an account of our financial result. I estimate that the existing scheme—when I say "the existing scheme," it is the scheme previous to contract "B" being brought into operation—is at the moment costing between £18,000 and £20,000 a year. This is the price paid for giving direct assistance to exporters to the value of approximately £3,000,000 a year. But it is also for giving indirect assistance to at least an equal amount by advice and information to exporters which does not result in business being done through the Department. We get a very large number of inquiries, and we give a very large, amount of advice, and that must be taken into consideration when you assess the loss of the scheme to the country. I believe that, on the whole, the country is getting fairly good value for this cost, but, naturally, the Department will not be satisfied until we can work without loss. That, of course, is the main reason for setting up this Committee of experts.
From the information in my possession, our loss of ratio is not above normal. It is between 60 and 70 per cent. of our premium receipts. But, in considering this loss ratio, we must bear in mind the restrictive character of our business. The basis of success of insurance work, as the Committee will fully realise, is that the wider the spread of business the less is the ratio of loss. That must always be so. When hon. Members consider that our business is restricted in character—we only do one kind of insurance business—and also that we do not reinsure our risks, they will realise that 60 or 70 per cent. of loss on our premium receipts is not really a very extravagant percentage.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Is it on the premium receipts that you are making a loss?

Mr. HACKING: Yes. Our losses are only 60 per cent.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Then you make a profit?

Mr. HACKING: Yes. We make a profit, but we do not take into consideration administration expenses. Whether our losses are because our premiums are not high enough' or our costs of administration are too high, we cannot say, and
that is why we are setting up the committee of experts to inquire into the matter.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the hon. Member tell us the ratio of administration expenses to business done?

Mr. HACKING: It is clear we ought not to make a loss. Our costs of administration may be too high, or our premiums may be too low. That is why we are setting up the committee of experts to investigate, and I hope that their report when it comes to hand will be satisfactory, and something upon which we can act. As far as I am concerned at the moment, I feel that we must leave it at that. I believe that the broad basis of the scheme meets with the general approval of this committee, but certain criticisms were made during the Debate on the Address which I should like to answer now, if only to save repetition by hon. Members. The first criticism was why this scheme should not be extended to Russia.

Mr. KELLY: And to India.

Mr. HACKING: I will deal with the question of India and the Far East later. For the moment, I am dealing with Russia. In the first regulations which were ever published in connection with export credits, as far as the Government were concerned, it was positively laid down that it was not intended to apply the scheme to Russia. There are, of course, political reasons, and I am not ashamed of the political reasons; and there are questions of policy; but my Department is really a non-political Department, and I am speaking from that point of view. We are a business Department. That is the only reason why I do not wish to go into the political side of the question to-day. I believe the reason why we get such uniform support from Members in all quarters of the House is that we do not interfere with politics, and that we do not know what politics are in my Department. We are a business Department, and we deal with business matters. I do not want to use political arguments to-day, but I wish to give purely common-sense business reasons. Our Department is always a business Department whatever party happens to be in power. I do not admit that we do not have more trouble with
some parties than with others. Anyhow, I want to-day to give purely commonsense business arguments. It is unwise to stand under a scaffold which is crumbling. That is common sense. I certainly am not going to stand under such a scaffold.

Mr. MAXTON: Why does the hon. Member not stand at the top of it?

Mr. HACKING: I do not aspire to such heights. Our loss at present is causing me concern, and I am not prepared to risk an even greater loss. That, again, is common-sense business. Why is there a greater risk if we extend our scheme to include Russia? Russia has to-day—I hope the Committee will agree with this argument—no exportable surplus of grain. Her credit is steadily going down, as it must do when she has fewer exports with which to pay for her imports. Her position must obviously grow much worse in the not too distant future owing to two factors (1) the failure of her crops, certainly in some parts of the country, and (2) on account of the complete break-down of her grain collecting policy. Her credit is not good now. What it will be like in 12 months time when our bills might become due for payment, nobody knows. This I do know, having spoken with many business men in this country, that few taxpayers would take the risk as individuals and it is certainly not the Government's desire to lose the taxpayers' money for them.

Miss WILKINSON: Can the hon. Member state one tiny instance of any bill that the Russian Government has not honoured since the Revolution?

Mr. HACKING: The hon. Member is now bringing in politics.

Miss WILKINSON: I am merely asking a question as a business concern.

Mr. HACKING: I am dealing with the position as I see it at the present time.

Miss WILKINSON: You must deal with facts, and not with your prejudices.

Mr. HACKING: Russia is not in a very healthy condition. I think I have proved that her condition is rapidly growing worse. At any rate, there is very great risk that in the future the position may be a great deal worse than it is now, and I do not think hon.
Members would be satisfied to run a risk, seeing that matters are not improving in Russia, but are steadily growing worse.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are these political reasons or business reasons?

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that we are in Committee, and that Ministers and hon. Members can speak more than once. I do suggest that the Minister should be allowed to make his statement without further interruption.

Mr. HACKING: I pass from Russia to India and the Far East. Hon. Members have asked, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) has asked me to-day and the question was put in the Debate on the Address, why India and the Far East are excluded from the scheme as far as textiles are concerned? The hon. Member for Rochdale said—I hope I am not misrepresenting him, for I have not his speech before me now—that several representations had been made to him that this scheme should include India and the Far East. Why are India and the Far East excluded as far as textiles are concerned? The answer is because in spite of what the hon. Member has said that there is a demand for these facilities, exporters of textiles to these Eastern markets do not, in fact, require our assistance. The "Manchester Guardian," a week or so after our new contract was first introduced, published a leading article on this question, in which the following statement appeared:
It should be explained that although this form of contract, known as Contract B, is new, the exclusion of India and the Far East from its operations, so far from being new or in any way directed against the interests of the Lancashire cotton trade, has been a part of the scheme ever since it came into operation, and was decided upon as the result of representations by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and other Chambers interested in the exportation of textiles to those countries.
The article proceeds:
On 9th November, 1921, the executive committees of the China and Far East Section and of the India Section of the Manchester Chamber passed the following Resolution.
I will not read the whole of the Resolution, but one part of the Resolution says:
Such extension is not only unnecessary, but it would prove harmful to the interests
of traders in those markets, the existing financial facilities and highly organised banking arrangements being deemed amply sufficient to meet all the requirements of safe trading.
That was in 1921. In 1924 my Department, possibly during the time that the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) was in charge, wrote to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce saying that representations had been made to them from various quarters and asking for its views as to whether the time had not then arrived for extending the scheme to India, Ceylon and the Straits Settlements. The reply received was:
My Committee are of opinion that the export credits scheme should not be extended as suggested, since it would he extremely unlikely that its operation in the markets concerned would lead to any helpful development of British trade.
I have no reason to believe that there has been any change in the attitude of Lancashire since then. When there is considerable demand for our facilities I can promise that we shall do our best to meet the demands. We are anxious, as we always have been, to assist trade and not to hinder it, but we will not butt in when we are not wanted. Hence the exclusion, as far as textiles are concerned, of the Indian and Far Eastern markets.
There is nothing further to say about the scheme. I have taken the Committee fully into my confidence. I have provided them with a White Paper, with a booklet and with a long speech. I hope they are satisfied with the two former, and I trust that the latter will have been of some assistance to them. I cannot resume my seat without an expression of appreciation of the Chairman and Members of the Advisory Committee who have placed their great knowledge of finance and insurance so freely at the disposal of my department, and have worked so strenuously, without fee or reward of any kind. They have been responsible for judging each individual application on its merits. Without this voluntary advisory committee, of which the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) is a member, it would have been quite impossible to have carried on our work. The very least we can do is to express to them our grateful thanks. I apologise for having kept the Committee so long, but I hope that
the length of my statement will have the effect of shortening other speeches, and that we may pass the Financial Resolution without undue delay.

Mr. LUNN: The Minister has been very honest with us, within the limits and restrictions of the scheme which he has put before us, but I am sure that the matters with which he did not deal will call for many speeches. I cannot understand why on every occasion the coal stoppage is blamed for whatever may have happened. It is the Zinovieff letter of the Government. Every Minister, whether he be a Cabinet Minister or an Under-Secretary, seems to bring in the coal stoppage, without regard to conditions. I think the hon. Member will agree with me that the conditions have considerably changed since early 1926, and they are responsible, perhaps, more than anything else for any development that has come in this particular scheme. A few minutes ago we decided on the Third Reading of a Bill to give relief for unemployment; not to provide employment, but to give relief to those for whom the Government have failed to provide employment. Now we are discussing a Bill which ought to be providing employment, but I am sure that it can be considered only as a mere drop in the ocean. Some £26,000,000 of the taxpayers' money has been provided for the purpose of being used by the Government to facilitate export credits. The highest amount of business mentioned by the hon. Member was £100,000 a week. Why has not more business been done, with industry in its present condition and with unemployment as it is to-day? Is it because the scope of the scheme is so narrow, or because the administration is so narrow that we are not able to make use of the £26,000,000 for our export trade, in order to assist and to develop it? The hon. Gentleman ought to have told us something more of the employment which has been provided under this scheme, and how far it has assisted industry. He ought to have given us the figures for each year, not for a period of 70 weeks as he has done, as to the trade which has been done under the export credits scheme.

Mr. HACKING: I did not want to go hack to the old scheme which was
scrapped before 1926, but to consider what had been done under the present scheme; not under the old original scheme.

Mr. LUNN: I am not speaking of the old "advances" scheme, because conditions have improved under the guaranteed schemes which we are now considering. I am not asking for information with regard to the old scheme, although I think we are entitled to know how much money is outstanding in connection with it. It is important that we should have all the facts before us, especially when we are asked to extend it for a further period of two years. Then, I think, we ought to know the classes of goods for which guarantees are given. Are all kinds of goods and all kinds of producers considered by the Advisory Committee or are they limited? We should also like to know the amount guaranteed for each class of goods; how far they are prepared to go with regard to particular classes of goods and whether any restrictions are placed upon one class of goods as against another? I should also like the hon. Gentleman to tell us what is the total staff of the Department at the moment? Has it been increased during this period or not? There has been an extension of the scheme as regards insurance, and it would be as well to know whether there has been an increase in staff and in the cost of administration up to the present.
We should also like to know the constitution of the Advisory Committee which deals with this matter. Has there ever been any change in the personnel? The Committee should know the names of the people who are dealing with these matters on behalf of the taxpayers of the country. The hon. Gentleman ought to have made some reference to them by name as well as in bulk. Many questions can be put with regard to this scheme, and when the Bill is introduced I have no doubt there will be some discussion as to how it can he extended to smaller producers. We have not been told whether it is the large producers or the small producers who take advantage of the scheme; whether the smaller people are considered at all. Then there is the question: How many applications have been before the Committee for guarantees and how many have been
turned down this year? I think some applications have been turned down which ought to have been granted. The hon. Gentleman might tell us the facts with regard to this. He referred to the Report of the Estimates Committee, but I do not think they recommended the latter part of the Terms of Reference. The Estimates Committee recommended an inquiry into the present system and administration, but I do not think they recommended this part of the Terms of Reference:
Suggest any changes in the general working of the scheme which are likely to facilitate the final transference of the business from Government control.
I do not think that was in the mind of the Estimates Committee, but I suppose it is in line with the policy of the Government to take this scheme out of Government control and hand it over to private enterprise. That part of the Terms of Reference ought to be struck out; the Government should retain control. There should be no question about Government control in matters where the taxpayers' money is concerned, and we ought not to hand over this scheme in this easy way. When the hon. Member does appoint this committee of three, men well known in finance who may merit all that he has said about them, I think he ought to have considered the appointment of women on the committee. It is not always the Minister who objects to the appointment of women; it is sometimes the people who are to be appointed. They resent the meddling interference of women, as they call it, and are not prepared to grant an equal status to them. I think he should have appointed one or two women on the Committee as they would have been of great service.
With regard to the question as to whether the scheme is to be extended or not, a Debate was held in this House on 1st March, 1926, on this point and on that occasion, it is quite safe to say, seven out of 10 speeches delivered from all parts of the House urged an extension to those exporters in this country who desire to do business with Russia. If we want to provide work for our people, are we satisfied to be continually raising millions of money for the Unemployment Insurance Fund? Why not take advantage of any and every country that is prepared to do business with us? Trade with Russia
was supported in March, 1926, by many hon. Members opposite, and now that this scheme is in such a condition that there is hardly any likelihood of any very great financial loss to the taxpayer, I think the question of trade with Russia might be considered by the Government. I am sure that we shall not do worse with Russia than with certain other European countries and, personally, I should like to see the scheme extended to Russia. I hope the Government will be able to say, not only to hon. Members on this side of the House who are interested in industry and the provision of work for our people, but to hon. Members opposite who are also interested in finding work for our people, that they realise there is a possibility of doing business with Russia and that, therefore, they are prepared to encourage an extension of the scheme to Russia as well as to any other country.
To me it seems that political hatred is the only reason why Russia is excluded from its operations. In my opinion, the extension of the principle of the Export Credits Scheme to exporters to Russia would not only benefit those who do business with Russia, but would also help to improve our relations with other countries. It would bring about a better understanding between us and all other countries. We are not opposing the extension of this scheme. We wish to see it further extended, because it will then be mach more useful than it is now. It is only a drop in the ocean, as I said before. The present Government, by their actions since 1924, have stripped industry of most of its clothing, and it has only a fig-leaf left to cover its nakedness. But even a fig-leaf is very welcome in times like these. In that respect we accept this extension and shall vote for it, because it does provide a little encouragement; though not to the extent it would have done if it was applied to every part of the world.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I regret very much what the Secretary to the Overseas Department has said with regard to extending the scheme to Russia. He told us that he was going to found his remarks on common sense, and not on politics. Let me draw his attention to the fact that one of our great industries is languishing to-day because it has not got access to the Russian market, which it is very desirous of getting
back. The difficulties in selling our herrings to Russia are thoroughly well understood by those in the trade, and they will assure anyone that the herring fishing industry can never recover its former vigour until it gets back into the Rusian market. On what grounds do the Government stand in the way of our selling our herrings to Russia? The hon. Member says on the ground of common sense, but surely it would be the acme of common sense to allow any application to trade with Russia to be submitted to the Advisory Committee? I am not suggesting that vague and unlimited credit should be extended to Russia or the Russian Government. I am only asking that the Government shall not put a ban on the Export Credits Scheme being used to allow claims to come before the Advisory Committee and let them decide whether they will allow the taxpayers' money to be used for this purpose. That is sound common sense. If the hon. Member could extend the scheme in that direction, he would be conferring a great benefit on an industry which is largely in need of the assistance which he alone can give.

Colonel WOODCOCK: I should like to congratulate the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department on the speech he has made to-day, and also on the interesting pamphlet which has been circulated to hon. Members. It explains a great deal of the working of the Export Credits Scheme. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) in the speech he has just made, but I agree with him that the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department should have given us many more details of the working of the scheme. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will, no doubt, be satisfied that exporters will be very grateful indeed for the new Contract B which is worth rereading:
This new form of Contract is therefore a valuable asset to an exporter who wishes to obtain credit in order to give credit in developing sound export trade, and at the same time wishes to strengthen his own position by insuring the credit risk.
These facilities are going to
Assist export traders in expanding their turnover without increasing their total liabilities.
6.0 p.m.
Contract B is going to he of the greatest service to exporters and traders of this country. But if the scheme is to be of any practical good whatever it must be run on business lines. The Secretary to the Department has stated that the whole of these export credit schemes was considered by the Estimates Committee, and the Estimates Committee brought out many points which appear in their Report and also are referred to in the Terms of Reference. There is no doubt as to the usefulness of this scheme to exporters, but it cannot be carried out if it is going to entail a large financial loss to the ratepayers of the country. If we are to carry out the scheme at all, it should be carried out in a business-like way. It will be within the recollection of many that in 1919 there was a scheme of a somewhat similar character, aril when it was closed down in 1921 it then showed a total loss of £1,100,000. I admit that the bulk of the debt was on one transaction. I understand that the present scheme is rather different, in that it is going to distribute its risks and its business over a far wider area. The Government in this insurance scheme are undertaking a commercial and highly technical business, and if they are to carry it out in a business-like way they should consider two or three things which the business houses would have to maintain. The Minister referred to administration expenses. The Report of the Estimates Committee said that these were unduly high for the work that was being done. One of the recommendations of the Estimates Committee was that the administration expenses should be greatly reduced, and that the staff should be brought down to a ratio to the turnover of the business done, just as a commercial house would look into the numbers of its staff in relation to the expansion or otherwise of business.
The Minister has told us to-day that there has already been great expansion in the business. He said that in 70 weeks the face value of the contracts was over £3,700,000, and that even during the last five weeks it was an amount of £489,000. But when the Estimates Committee looked at the general working of the scheme, they found that the total premiums for the last year were £39,000, and that 50 per cent. of that sum was
for administration. Largely increased figures have been mentioned by the Minister to-day, and if he has not reduced the ratio of expenses of administration a great deal, we shall have to face a far greater loss than his estimate of £18,000 to £20,000 a year. It was pointed out on the Estimates Committee, as far as could be ascertained, that 12 per cent. loss on the total turnover had been incurred under the scheme from its commencement. Unless that 12 per cent. is greatly reduced on the greatly increased turnover, we shall have a very much larger loss than £20,000 to the Government. I think we should consider whether we cannot reduce administration expenses to bring them within a measure that will make this a paying scheme, or at least balance the accounts. The Government should consider whether they are able to raise the premiums to an adequate amount so as to balance accounts in that way.
The Government are giving a great deal besides money under this scheme. In the first place, there is no expense of office accommodation to add to the administration expenses. That is one item to its credit. Then the whole of the credit of the Government is behind the scheme and should make it effective and as cheaply run as possible. I hope the scheme will be a success, but I do not want it to be at the same time a success and also a great burden to the taxpayer. As the scheme grows I hope that the Government will watch the growth of administration expenses. Although it is a good effort to make for the trade exporters of this country, we should not agree to its being carried on at an exorbitant loss. If to the traders it is worth having, it is worth paying for. They are getting these great facilities, and I feel sure would not be averse to paying some small extra premium so that the Government could run the scheme without incurring a financial loss. I hope the Minister will give us some more particulars as to the staff that the increase of business has entailed, and, as to what he thinks the percentage of loss is to be on the whole of the increased turnover.

Miss WILKINSON: I can congratulate the Minister on one piece of very excellent work. The Report which he
has issued is certainly a credit to the Department. But the speech of the Minister hardly did credit to himself or his department. He has continually appealed to us to conduct these discussions on business-like lines. Those who heard that part of his speech which dealt with the expansion of the export credits scheme must have been amazed to hear so excellent a Minister merely produce a collection of platitudinous prejudices. Not once did be bring forward an argument—not one figure, not one fact. All he said in a very kind way was that the collection of bills in Russia had not proved a success. In fact he hoped it would be a failure. He did not say that, but when he was dwelling with something like pleasure on the prospect of failure in. Russia, one could not help feeling that he was expressing a hope rather than a fear. What are the facts? We have not had them from the Minister. I am not giving Labour authorities for what I am about to say. I refer the Minister to a very prominent business man, Sir Philip Nash, who is the chairman of Metropolitan-Vickers. Through his firm he has had as large dealings with Russia as has any firm in this country, and he says that the Russian Government has met its bills quite properly. Quite recently there was a dinner of. London business men interested in this subject, and the Chairman at that dinner pointed out that. the Russian bills had been met.
Obviously, even if all the Russian Government were the appalling kind of people, with horns and tails, that Ministers think of in their worst moments when addressing a, frightened electorate, it would be simply suicide for the Russian Government, with things as they are, not to meet their bills. It is because of that that the Minister cannot produce a single case where the Russian Government has not met its bills. That being so, I would ask the Minister whether he is taking into consideration not merely the Government's rather narrow interpretation of the export credits scheme, but the whole field of the industries which it is supposed to help? Just before the Minister took his place on the Front Bench this afternoon we were engaged in voting another £10,000,000 to his colleague, the Minister of Labour, for the Unemployment Insur-
ance Fund. We go on voting such amounts. But that is not dealing with the problem. We are merely frittering away on the fringe of unemployment. Even from the Government's own point of view, what this country wants is markets, and we cannot begin to solve the unemployment problem until we deal with that need. The Minister and others are going up and down the world saying, "We want markets." What are the facts? Many of the markets to which we supplied goods before the War are now making those goods themselves, and are doing so behind high tariff walls.
The markets that we most need are in agricultural and more or less undeveloped countries that need our engineering products. We find two things. The industries in this country that are most needing markets are the basic industries, like iron and steel and engineering. Representing, as I do, one of the largest iron and steel producing areas in the world, an area that is devastated by unemployment, I can tell the Minister that the business men of that area are asking what the Government are doing with regard to unemployment in the iron and steel industry. It is not enough to pass a Vote for a mere bagatelle of £10,000,000, when that £10,000,000 is merely to be dropped into the endless abyss of unemployment benefit. If the Government were looking for means of extending our markets, especially where iron and steel and engineering goods are concerned, they, could not find a better market than Russia. Let us leave out for the moment the question of the particular complexion of the present Government in Russia. No doubt if I was sitting on the Government side of the House with the Minister, my political prejudices would be as violently against Italy as the present ministerial prejudices are against Russia, but my prejudices about Italy or the Minister's prejudices about Russia have no more to do with the case than the way in which Mussolini and Stalin part their hair. The whole point is whether there is a possible market for British goods in Russia and whether the export credits scheme can help us to attain those markets.
In Russia there are 100,000,000 people, of whom over 90 per cent. are peasants. They are needing engineering goods of
all kinds, and the fact is that the Russian industry, even if it were working more than it is, is not sufficient to supply the need. Surely there is there a tremendous market for just the kind of thing that we are anxious to sell? For example, take Metropolitan - Vickers again. When certain orders for Russia came to an end not long ago the firm had to go on half time. If the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) were here I know he would be able to speak with equal force with regard to the agricultural implement industry of the City of Lincoln. There, again, when the Russian orders ceased, there was great unemployment. Then with regard to Middlesbrough, with its great iron and steel works, especially constructional iron and steel, we want openings for the sale of our products. That is much more important than tinkering around with tariffs. We want to sell our goods. In these 100,000,000 peasants of Russia we have an unexampled market, and it would have been better if we had been giving £10,000,000 a year for export credits to Russia.
Germany has got a large proportion of these orders. Are the Government's prejudices against Russia so strong that they would prefer to see those orders going to Germany rather than to this country? If that is their attitude, it may do very well here, but I should not like the Minister to go to Middlesbrough, or Lincoln, or any of the other industrial areas affected and put that point of view before the unemployed men. There are thousands of engineers in this country who could he employed to-day if it were not for the black political prejudice of this Cabinet and the Minister. The Minister opened his speech with a great eulogy of the three experts whom he was appointing on the Committee. He said that Sir Otto Niemeyer, Sir William Plender and the other gentleman, whose name I forgot, were persons who would command respect. If that be so—and far be it from me to object to the statement—why cannot the Minister leave it to these experts to decide whether this is a good business proposition or not? Surely it is insulting their intelligence if at the same time as you appoint these three men, whom you describe as of such outstanding intelli-
gence that no mere woman must even look near the seats of the mighty—if you say, "Here are the three men of all men who must command respect" and you appoint them—and then you do not even allow them to decide on the merits of the case.
These three business men, because they are business men and practical men who look at this matter not from the point of view of politics, but from the point of view of common sense, might conceivably consider this proposition and say, "Why not give credits to Russia?" Russia has met her bills; she wants to buy engineering goods; there are thousands of pounds' worth of Russian oil and petrol in this country as security if it comes to that. But the Minister says: "No, this is a matter that cannot be decided by common sense it must not be left to the experts and the business men, it must be decided by politics. These three men must not be allowed to recommend export credits for Russia." And before they go into their room to decide on this highly technical subject, these experts are to be told that there is an absolute bar, and that, however good a business proposition they may think it, they cannot be allowed to give export credits to Russia. I shall have great pleasure in pointing this out to some large meetings of the unemployed which I propose to address in the near future. It think it would be rather interesting to address one in the Minister's own constituency. Here is the Minister quite calmly stating that his prejudice, the Cabinet's prejudice and the prejudices of the people in control of the Government are such that they would rather see engineers—like the men who are making those heavy wagons which would be extremely useful to Russia—receiving unemployment pay than use this money in order to open up credits with Russia.
The Government are much more concerned about having a sort of unofficial blockade of the present Russian Government than about getting our people employment. If they go to the country with a statement like that and expect support in the industrial areas, they will find they are putting their money on a very wrong horse. I believe the country is utterly sick of the Government's hysterics about Russia. After all that the Government say, the fact remains that the Russian Government to-day is
one of the strongest in the world. It is much more broadly based in the interests of its own people than the present Government in this country. It may be the fault of the Russian people, but the fact is that the Government have been in power longer than the present Government of this country and longer, I believe, than any of the present Governments in the world.

Sir FRANK MEYER: Have they held an election?

Miss WILKINSON: Have the Italian Government held an election? What business is it of ours whether the Russian Government have held an election or not. We are told by the Minister that politics do not enter into this question, but the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) proposes not to extend export credits to Russia because the Russian Government have not held an election on the lines which he would approve. I am not pleading for political approval of the Russian Government. All I am asking is that this matter should be decided on a business and commonsense basis. I represent a constituency which is devastated by unemployment. I represent men who have been unemployed for four or five years. I represent an area where great iron and steel works are idle and blast furnaces have been put out, and I say that this Government ought not to allow any political prejudice to stand in the way of finding markets for our goods and of using this credit scheme wherever it is possible to put it into operation.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: I am in agreement with the last speaker in this respect, that I should like to have this question decided on purely business lines. I should like to keep all hysterics on either side out of the consideration of this important subject. When we read these criticisms of the management of this Department, it seems to me that it is entirely divorced from business lines. When the scheme was started, the whole of Europe was in a state of chaos. No exporter sending goods from here to the Continent knew in what manner he was going to be paid for his goods, while the importer on the Continent had not the slightest idea of how he was going to get exchange to pay for those goods. It was then necessary for a scheme—
possibly an unbusinesslike scheme—to be proposed, Europe being, as I say, in a state of chaos and importers on the Continent not knowing where to turn for exchange. In the last 10 years, mainly through the influence, I believe, of the Central Banks, that state of chaos has been removed. Generally speaking, with the exception of Russia, the state of Europe financially has considerably improved. Exchanges have been put in order; in practically every country exchange can be bought and sold freely and the exporter and the importer know, the one that he is going to obtain payment, and the other how he is going to make payment.
Ten years ago no ordinary business firm or company was prepared, on a large scale, to take these risks, but a small company was started by some very intelligent men who understood their business and who, in touch with the Board of Trade, wished to make a contribution towards solving the unemployment problem. They started a small company to do this sort of business. One of the criticisms of that company then was that the facilities supplied were so small as to be quite ineffective in helping to deal with unemployment. In the course of 10 years this small company has developed from a capital of £40,000 to a capital of £250,000. It has managed its affairs, I presume with ability—indeed, of that I am sure in view of the people who conduct it. It has not been able to make large profits. It has been paying, at one time 5 per cent. and at another time 6 per cent., on its capital, which is not a very large return for what is believed to be risky business and a business started in order to deal, in some measure, with the unemployment situation and help the Government in that respect. To-day one of the criticisms made against that company has been answered. It is prepared to-day to take individual risks, that is one risk at a time, up to £250,000, which is a considerable figure. It is prepared to take quite a number of risks up to £250,000, and it can do so because it has been developed upon very intelligent international lines.
I think the Committee will agree that few Government Departments, even though they have diplomatic representatives and other persons in their employment abroad, can judge of the financial
status of people in foreign countries as well as local bankers or financiers in those countries. This company, I believe, has allied itself with similar companies formed under its auspices in almost every country in Europe, and a condition has been made that if it guarantees credits or exports to an importer abroad, the foreign company associated with it in that country shall, first, inquire into the circumstances and credit of the importer, and that, if they report favourably to the English company, the foreign company shall take a share of that risk. If you have this international agreement between financial institutions to help each other and report on the people in their own countries, you get better and more reliable information than the Government can get from their representatives. In addition to that, this company has been able to earn some small profit—at any rate it has been able to avoid the losses which the Government have made.
This company has been willing to afford the Government every advice, and I believe has done so, but it finds that the Government, now that Europe is stable, is still going on with this scheme which was founded only as a temporary scheme. Each Minister, in turn, has said that it was to be temporary and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said so quite lately. I think most business men feel that this matter should be conducted on purely business lines. If the Government have facilities for making inquiries and doing safe business, it ought not to undercut financial institutions working possibly on a small profit, but at any rate without loss. I remember this company being started and I was very doubtful of its being possible for it to do business without loss. It has proved itself efficient by results and I think it is possibly doubtful policy for the Government now to continue this work, at times cutting the rates against these business companies, when perhaps—we cannot speak with assurance—there are institutions, ably managed, ready to take on this business themselves.

Mr. HACKING indicated dissent.

Mr. GRENFELL: The Minister shakes his head. It may be that he is taking risks or is prepared to take risks which these companies would not take; but I am bound to say that the risks that have
been taken by the Government in the past have not resulted in a profit. In fact they have resulted in a loss to the Government. Purely as a matter of economy I regret that it should be necessary to continue this scheme.

Mr. GILLETT: The Minister in his closing remarks made a very kind reference to members of the voluntary committee including myself. I do not think I personally justified his remarks because my duties here and elsewhere prevented me attending the committee in the way I should like to have done. At the same time, his remarks about the work done by the chairman and vice-chairman and certain members of the committee are entirely justified. We owe a debt of gratitude to them for their work and advice. The hon. and gallant Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) said he wanted the scheme to be run on business lines. I think he has forgotten one thing which at any rate was always present in our minds. We were given to understand on the committee that, if any business came before us that we thought could better be done by the banks advancing the money—perhaps without requiring actual insurance—that in that case we should not attempt to compete with banking institutions which might do the work. Therefore, hon. Members who judge this as a purely business concern should remember that, as a matter of fact, it was not a purely business concern, but was definitely started, as the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Grenfell) has said, with the object of trying to help remove unemployment. At the same time, it was understood that we should not try to compete with institutions that might be affected by the work we were doing. That is a fundamental principle that has to be remembered in connection with the whole consideration of this scheme. An hon. Friend speaking from these benches asked whether small sums were considered, and I can assure him that large numbers of small sums are agreed to at every meeting of the Committee.
In regard to the statement made by the Minister as to the appointment of a Committee to investigate the whole of the management of the undertaking, I should like to say, in the first place, that while it may be advisable to investigate
the cost of the scheme, it should be remembered that a, great deal of work has been done by the Department in investigating many cases which afterwards have been passed on to private institutions and, therefore, do not appear among the figures as work done by the Department. There has also been a large amount of exceedingly valuable information gathered by the Department.
The hon. and gallant Member who introduced the scheme stated that the Committee would be asked to investigate the question of the transfer of the Department to private hands. It seems to me that the hon. and gallant Member has forgotten his principle about not introducing politics, because I cannot conceive that anything except pure politics would induce the Government to ask the Committee to investigate the question as to whether the Export Credits Scheme should be handed over to private hands. It is rather like pulling up a plant that has been planted for only a short time, in order to see how the roots are getting on. What is required at present is not to consider whether the scheme should be handed over, but how the work can be extended and what can be done in order to help the export trade of this country.
The hon. Member for the City of London has put up a plea for private institutions, but I cannot see any institution, unless it is infinitely larger than the one to which he has referred, that can in any way undertake the work that the Export Credits Scheme has undertaken. I believe there is a fundamental difference between the work of an insurance society and this scheme. As hon. Members know, most of the finance of the scheme is carried out by bills. The Department lays it down as a principle that if a bill that they have guaranteed is presented and fails to be met by those who have made themselves liable, then the Department will at once pay the exporter from this country the amount of the liability. As I understand it, the insurance company to which the hon. Member for the City of London referred does not do that. I understand that to a large extent that company says that ultimately, if the exporter does not get his money, it will pay him. Anyone who has contracted bad debts in foreign countries knows that it may he months
or even years before you know that the person who has failed to pay your bill is insolvent, and that is the vital difference between, I will not say the society referred to by the hon. Member for the City of London, and this scheme, but at any rate between societies that are competing with the Export Credits Scheme. A wealthy firm may be able to carry on if it knows that it will get the money in the end, but for the smaller firms it is vital to know that when they find that a bill has not been met, the Government will at once step in and pay the money.
The next question that comes up is as to whether the Government scheme is undercutting other institutions. I do not believe that a private concern can compete with the Government scheme, and that is why I believe the Minister is making a great mistake in thinking that he is going to be able to hand it over. There is one very important matter that is essential in connection with a scheme of this kind, and that is to be able to get information. That is where one or two hon. Members who are on the Committee have been of so much assistance, because they have been able to give information obtained from one or two large institutions. On the other hand, the Government themselves have also been able to obtain a large amount of information, and it has always seemed to me, speaking as a member of the Committee, that whenever the Department wanted to get information from other banks, there has never been the slightest hesitation on the part of the banks, which have been perfectly willing to give the Department all the information required. I should like to ask the Minister, when he considers the question of private enterprise, if he thinks that a private concern will be met in the same way by all these other institutions. After all, they know that this scheme is not out to make a profit, necessarily. It is hoped that it will meet its expenses, but they know that the main object is to help the trade of the country and to remove unemployment. Therefore, they are quite willing to give information which is of great value in order to assist the scheme, but if you are going to put it on a purely money-making basis, and the concern asks for information in order to get a larger dividend, I doubt very much
whether you will find private concerns meeting it in the same way as the Government Department has been met. Therefore, I think it is a fundamental mistake for the Government to attempt to hand over the work of this Department.
In connection with the very interesting new proposal that has been made, one of the difficulties in some quarters that has had to be faced, though possibly now the difficulty is not so great as it was soon after the War, has been the difficulty of getting long-term credits, and I believe the Department to some extent is meeting that difficulty. The second point in regard to the scheme that the hon. and gallant Member has mentioned is the arrangement by which the banks are being brought more closely into the whole of the plan. I gather that it will tend to make a larger amount of banking credit available for the use of firms which are unable now to get financial assistance because some of their previous business ventures have not proved altogether successful, and they may have for the time being got some of their goods in cold storage, so that the banks hesitate, without further basking from some outside source, to lend them further money. With the assistance of the Government, if a business is thought to be satisfactory, I understand that now credit will be forthcoming which would not otherwise have been forthcoming. It seems to me that that is a very important proposal.
I regret that the Minister did not explain more fully why the restriction in regard to trade with India is still kept in existence. I always understood that this restriction was put on because, after 1920, when there was the great fall in prices, tremendous quantities of goods that were intended for Indian consumption were in store, and the merchants were unable to dispose of them. Therefore, it was felt undesirable at that time that any new scheme should be put forward to compete with these goods, and I understood that that was the reason why this restriction was put upon India. I should have thought that now, eight or ten years later, the matter might have been reviewed. In regard to the explanation of the hon. and gallant Member in which he referred to a statement made by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce a few
years ago, I thought that that seemed to be hardly up-to-date, and I should be glad to know if he has consulted those engaged in this trade in Manchester and elsewhere to find out if this embargo is still required.
As to the question of our relationship with Russia, I should like to remind the hon. and gallant Member, who talked about the condition of Russia and said we had been expecting that there might be a financial or political collapse in that country for some time, that a large amount of the trade done in connection with this scheme is carried on by bills at three months, and if you are going to apply the same limitation in your credit advances to a three months' bill, possibly the disaster to which the hon. and gallant Member referred might not come as quickly as he thinks. I could not help being reminded of a quotation which was brought to the notice of this House, when we last discussed this scheme, by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton). The quotation was from no less a person than the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who, speaking about the Russian position, is reported to have said that however much we might dislike the Russian Government he thought it was a fundamental mistake to allow this to govern our relations in business concerns. He said:
Nevertheless, you are not going to create any advantage to the world by permanently seeking to ostracise a people, and I held the view which I hold to-day that the best way to create a change in that country, if you disbelieve in their methods and in their principles of government, the best way to create the change you desire to see would be to enter into amicable relations with its people.
That seems to me to be a very sound principle, which the hon. and gallant Member might carefully consider in reviewing the position. I should like, in conclusion, to say that I think we might appeal to the Press of this country to give as wide a circulation as they can to the new scheme that the hon. and gallant Member has brought before the Committee to-day. After all, this may seem a very small thing; the figures may be small, but it is an attempt to help our export trade in order to try to remove some portion of the great mass of unemployment, which is baffling all our minds to-day. If this new scheme can be made
widely known among the banks, it will be of great assistance. I believe there is a future for this scheme, and I should like to see it extended. I can only hope that; the committee which is to investigate it will not confine its investigations to seeing if they can save money here and there, but to seeing how the whole scheme may be enlarged and improved, and made more efficient.

Mr. ROY WILSON: I am sorry to have to say that I do not find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) in his criticism of this Export Guarantee Scheme. With my knowledge of overseas banks, I can say definitely that there is a great future for both these schemes, the Export Credits Insurance Schemes now adopted by the Department of Overseas Trade. While some criticism has been made both in the House to-day and by the Estimates Committee, of which I am a Member, of the administrative charges, we must remember that anything like a thoroughly efficient guarantee scheme to be run by the Government must involve a thoroughly efficient and- up-to-date departmental management. We are apt to lose sight of the fact that the Export Credit Guarantee Scheme only started in July, 1926. While it may be true that during the first 20 months of that scheme it did not bring all the business and all the premiums some of us could wish, nevertheless it got a good start. Undoubtedly, it has been of some benefit to exporters, and I ask the Committee to remember that assistance to exporters by means of credit insurance has been adopted in Germany by the Government with enormous advantage to the German exporters. I am not exaggerating in saying that it has been one of the principal factors in the rapid recovery of the German export trade; they have had a thoroughly good guarantee scheme supported and run very largely by the German Government.
I should like particularly to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend upon what is termed Contract B. Contract A, that is, the Guarantee Scheme which has been in force since July, 1926, while being quite a useful form of insurance for the exporter, is a restricted form of insurance; and while it certainly guaran-
tees the exporter against loss in connection with his transactions, it is not in the ordinary course a transferable insurance through which he could get additional credit facilities. Contract B, which the Government have now brought forward, will, if it be properly handled, prove a great stimulus to the export trade of this country, because the essence of that contract is that the exporter can go to his bank and say, "Here are my bills of exchange with documents attached, and here is an undertaking of insurance on the part of the Government that the bills will be paid, as soon as they are accepted, upon their due dates." In that way, the exporter is enabled to get larger credit facilities than otherwise he would have been able to obtain.
It is all very well for people, who, perhaps, are not closely associated with the financing of overseas operations to say, as some people say to me, that any business with hills of lading for goods attached for shipment overseas ought, provided that the customer is respectable, to be business which any bank should, with pleasure, undertake; but those of us who are engaged in overseas banking know that, however good the customer may be, there is bound to be a limit to the extent of credit that that customer can obtain from the bank, and in this new contract we find a ready and safe means through which the bank can grant to their exporting customers additional credit which no doubt will run to a considerable amount, and be of advantage to the exporter and, I hope, to the manufacturing trade.
Another good feature of the scheme, and one which should relieve some of the doubts of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, is that before the Department give this guarantee, they must be completely satisfied by reports from, the exporter on the standing of his customer, and from the bank, which is to discount the bills, that the business is a reasonable and a fair one. I believe that this closer association which is now to be introduced between the Export Credits Department and the banks, will undoubtedly be a good thing for trade generally, and will substantially increase the turnover which we shall receive from
these export transactions. My hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department will, I am sure, agree that already he has received, not only from the distinguished people who are connected with the Advisory Committee of the Export Credits Department, but, since July, 1926, the greatest assistance and co-operation of the banks in the matter of reports upon the risks which the Export Credits Department are undertaking.
I had not intended to enter into a discussion about trade with Russia, but I find it difficult to understand why hon. Members of the Labour party should press all the time for the Government to take the risk, of with credit transactions Russia. Surely we lose sight of what is an all-important point; there are no business houses, as such, in Russia. When you are shipping your goods to a business house in Russia, you are taking the credit of the Russian Government. I do not want to be dogmatic on this question, but in common with every-body in the House, I should like to see a flourishing trade between Russia and Great Britain, and I should like to see this trade increasing on a fair, reasonable and safe basis, hut unfortunately we have to face facts. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) and another hon. Member said that no Russian bills of recent years for goods shipped from this country have been dis-honoured. Do they realise that in practically all these transactions, representing considerable sums of money, gold has been deposited in London for a large proportion of the credit risks which are being taken? I urge, but not as a party man, this upon the people in Russia, that if they would only convince His Majesty's Government that credit can be given with safety and assurance to Russia, I, for one, would support the Government extending these credit insurance schemes to Russia as to other countries; but until this country can be satisfied—and I 'am certain that manufacturers take the same point of view—that the contracts of the Russian Government will be honoured in the spirit and in the letter, I cannot see how the Government can extend the export credit scheme to business with that great country.
I congratulate my hon. Friend upon the little pamphlet explaining the facilities provided by the Government for financing these credits through insurances, and I would make a suggestion. I am one of those who believe that it is all very well launching a scheme like this, and getting, as I am certain we shall get, the co-operation of the Press to advertise it, but my experience tells me that you want to get the co-operation, not only of the head offices of the banks in London, but of every individual bank manager in all the large towns where the exporters have their businesses. Too often these; important things are circulated through a London channel, and perhaps sent to the provinces, reaching a busy man with a mass of documents from his head office, and in consequence are not read. I should like the Department to send a ropy of the memorandum, with a supply of the forms, to each individual bank manager in all the industrial towns of the country, with a letter asking him, not only to take in all the details of it, but to do his best to bring it to the notice of his customers direct. He might also get the chambers of commerce to take this pamphlet up, to consider it at their meetings, and do their utmost in the large towns to circularise their members. If this were done, I should have a great deal more hope of this thing being rapidly adopted and getting known, than I should have if I thought that it were merely to be sent from his Department to the head offices of some, of the banks.
I believe that Contract A has done its part and that Contract B, if it be properly understood by the merchants and exporters, will add materially to our business. I am not without hope that the example which the Government have given in this very excellent insurance—because it is a much better insurance than Contract A—may persuade big insurance companies, who have been behind the times very largely in the matter of credit insurance, to take it up. In that way we shall have a more powerful means of assisting our export trade than we have ever had.

7.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wondered when the hon. and gallant Gentleman was introducing his Motion why he trailed his coat, and seemed to be looking for trouble, and I had to wait until the hon. Member for the City
of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) spoke before I discovered the reason. At first I thought that it was the natural pugnacity of the hon. and gallant Gentleman man, who does not get many opportunities of speaking for his Department, and that he was making a night out of it, but I find that he wanted to drag into the discussion the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) and, if possible, the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox). Criticisms of the scheme of the most damaging kind from the point of view of the City of London would thus be lost sight of. It was not his natural liking for a scrap, but in order to get a few red herrings drawn across the discussion so as to keep off the trail the hon. Member for the City of London. What does the hon. Member say of the scheme? This is a business, it must be remembered, in which the Government first engaged in 1920, and not in 1926 as this booklet says. It was then a very risky business to export to Europe at all, and it was quite right therefore for the Government to pledge the taxpayers' credit and to reinsure and guarantee a merchant's risks. The hon. Member for the City of London, who is a distinguished banker, speaking for the high finance of the commercial capital of the world, says that there is not much risk in Europe now, except in Russia, that currencies are stabilised, and that Europe is settling down, while the ordinary arteries of commerce are opening again. He says that a small company with a capital of £250,000 has been started, and that it is therefore wrong for the Government to continue a business in which they did the pioneer work now that it has become profitable. He says that this profitable business must be handed over to this private company. There you have the mind of the City of London. I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman. He is representing his constituency as I try to represent mine. He is representing the mind of the leaders of the City of London. Any business that begins to pay must be handed over to private enterprise, and must not be left in Government hands. One day it is wireless; now it is overseas credit. In spite of the fact that the Government have taken the risk and done the pioneer work, this business, with its experience
and goodwill and trained personnel, should be handed over to some private bank or company in the City of London. This is the philosophy of the Conservative.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: What I say is that now the sky is blue and everything is easy the Government do not seem able to do the thing. If they cannot do it now, they never will.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Government in 70 weeks have done a total volume of business of £3,700,000 with overhead charges of £20,000. It is obvious that under contract "B" they are going to increase the amount of business and that the overhead charges will not form such a high percentage. When this scheme was first introduced in 1920—it is not an invention of the present Conservative Government, but is a proposal which was first brought forward by the Coalition Government at a time when things were extremely difficult in Europe—I remember standing on this same spot where I am now and criticising it, not on its merits, but on the ground of its inadequacy. I remember the words I used at the time, eight years ago, when I said:
It was a plaster to try and cure an ulcer.
At that time our trade was hampered by difficult conditions in Europe. Now we still have the trade slump and the unemployment, but we have more stable conditions in Europe. I can see great possibilities in this Department. I was glad to note that the Overseas Trade Department itself is not to be wound up until after the next election, according to the Prime Minister. I do not think he will have the opportunity of acting in the matter then. I admit that, even if the Overseas Trade Department were wound up, this particular business would then be under the control of the Board of Trade. Apparently, the Government have hesitated to wind up the Overseas Trade Department largely on account of its work which we are now discussing. I hope that, far from its being wound up, it will be enormously extended. Under contract "B" we are going to give a guarantee to the exporter which he can take to his bank and get credit from his bank at a fine rate of interest without
recourse to himself. I would like to see us go a great deal further than that. If we are going to use Government credit to guarantee the exporter's bank, why should the hank take that profit? Why should not the Government Department guarantee the money itself, and take the profit for the Treasury? If we are going to go so deeply into the acceptance business, why should not this Department, with its trained civil servants and its means of information, go a little further and act as an acceptance house altogether?

Mr. GRENFELL: The Government have not the money.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why not? It is the same thing as guaranteeing the money. There is not much difference in principle. The Overseas Trade Department, with its ramifications all over the world, linked up as it is with the Consular Service, should have great means of intelligence from our commercial attachés abroad. That Department is taking a certain risk, so why should it not provide not only the credit but the money too? What is the objection? I can see the hon. Member for the City of London objects, because it will be competing with the banks, but the Government are now competing with other companies, with the acceptance houses, and with this company, which the hon. Member described, which engages in reinsurance transactions for exporters to-day. Therefore, if the principle of the Government engaging in a form of banking is accepted, why not go a little further and use Government credit for the assistance of the export trade? I would much rather use £50,000,000 of the taxpayers' money for this purpose than have men standing about in the street doing nothing. I believe in employment, and I am not concerned with the happiness of the bankers and insurance managers of the City of London who look after themselves very well.
I am thinking about the poor fellows in my constituency, not in the City of London, but in the city of Hull, who cannot get work at the present time because our export trade has been languishing. If I could use £50,000,000 a year of Government credit to help our export trade, I would far rather do that
than pay it out to unfortunate young men at 17s. a week, which is just enough to keep them from starving. I suppose that my suggestion is without precedent, and that, because it was not done in the reign of Queen Victoria, therefore it must not be done now. I throw out this suggestion not to the present Government, but to my friends, who, I hope, after the next election will be able to put it into force. I do not want to disappoint the hon. Member for Wycombe. I know he was squirming, figuratively speaking, when the last hon. Member said we ought to do as much trade as possible with Russia. Does the hon. Member want to do trade with Russia? No. He shakes his head. Neither does the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department.
I always understood that this scheme was not for the benefit of the foreign merchant or consumer, not for the benefit of the German or Italian or Chinaman, but for the benefit of our own people. However, because the Government so hate the present Government in Russia, and are so prejudiced and so hysterical about it, they are quite prepared to injure our own people if only they can hurt the Russians. So much has been said about this subject that I really approach it with reluctance, but, after all, I represent one of the divisions of a city which has always done its principal trade with the Baltic. We in Hull have in the past kept ourselves going and become very prosperous and busy on Russian trade. I challenge the hon. Member for Wycombe to go down there, and address a popular audience and say it is wrong to do trade with Russia.

Sir A. KNOX: I did address a popular audience there on the occasion, of the hon. Member's election.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Well, we see the result. It is a fact, too, that the Conservative Members for Hull do not adopt that attitude at all. They dare not. They say that we ought if we can to trade with Russia. When the Bill is printed, I hope it will be possible to move an Amendment to cut out this prohibition against guarantees to Russia. I hope it will be moved and that we shall divide the House on it. I am quite prepared to defend the posi-
tion that I have taken up in the country, and I have spoken on it during many a Debate in this House. I say it is very wrong indeed for the Government shamelessly to use a political argument in order to prevent British merchants for the sake of British work-people from doing trade with a country with whom we can do trade. It is appalling to hear the hon. Member in charge of this Department standing at that Box, where such great figures have stood, and gloating over the fact that the harvest has failed in Russia, rubbing his hands with delight—[Interruption.] Is he sorry that the harvest has failed in Russia?

Mr. HACKING: Of course, I am sorry.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then why not guarantee the export of reaping machines to Russia? Why should there be this inhibition on that perfectly honest trade? Not munitions, of course. I was responsible for the Amendment in the original Act forbidding munitions to be sent, and I am very glad I took that course, because some of the hon. Members opposite would have benefited, though not through sending munitions to Russia, of course. I do not make any attack upon the hon. Members for Birmingham. The hon. Member representing the Government says the harvest in Russia has failed. Has not Russia anything else to export? I have heard a great outcry raised by his friends, and especially by some hon. Gentlemen not now in the House, against exports of oil from Russia to this country. Has not Russia got timber, and many other things At present the Union Cold Storage Company is giving credits to Russia for the import of dairy produce into this country —eggs, cheese and so on—and are doing a very fine business; and some of the best firms in this country, like Mather and Platt, people whose credit at Lloyds is A A A A, and to whom the hon. Member for the City of London would give a loan up to any amount at any time, have been doing business with Russia on a credit basis and have not had a complaint of a single protest of any bill given on behalf of the Russian Government. I should not be doing my duty to the men of the constituency I represent if I did not protest against this inhuman and stupid policy of cutting off our noses to spite Russia's face.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I hope the Minister will stick to his guns in spite of the terrible threat of the hon. Lady who sits for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) to carry the fiery cross into his constituency. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) challenged me to go to his constituency and speak on the subject of trade with Russia. I went there when he was elected to this House, and I confess that I had a most rowdy audience, but I always attributed that to the popularity of the hon. and gallant Member, and not to any disagreement with the few remarks I ventured to make. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. baronet the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), who was very anxious that his constituents should be able to sell their herrings to Russia, but I would like to point out that there is nothing to prevent the Russian Government, who are the only people trading in Russia, from buying the hon. Baronet's herrings if they wish to do so. In the nine months ending 30th September we purchased from Russia goods to the value of £13,500,000, whereas Russia purchased from us goods to the value of £2,250,000 only, so that Russia has a credit balance, which she might spend in this country, of something under £11,500,000. Why should not Russia spend that money in buying herrings from Scotland, or buying other goods? Why should we give Russia further credit when she has got this large credit which she does not choose to use. I do not suggest that she should use that money in supporting the Third International, though some of it does go in that way, or in creating chaos in other countries, though some of it undoubtedly does go for that purpose also.
I quite understand that hon. Members of the Opposition who sit above the Gangway take a particular interest in Russia, because Russia is an example of nationalisation pushed to its extreme end, and they naturally want to bolster up Russia in order to make it appear that that system is a success, though it is quite impossible that it should be Derjinski, a few hours before his sudden death, in 1926, explained that the whole system had failed and was about to crash. It may totter on a little longer but we do not know how long. There are other reasons, apart from
this large credit which Russia has in this country, why I am opposed to using the national credit to extend trade with Russia. We ought to remember how the Russians have robbed our nationals. There are in this country many British subjects in a state of starvation because their goods were stolen in Russia and their factories taken. Is it realised that a great part of the oil which Russia exports, at any rate half of it, conies from wells which were sunk with British capital, and that these have been taken by the Russian Government. who have made no attempt to pay for them? The Russian Government are now touting all over the world for loans with which to get their tramways working in Kharkoff, Kieff, Moscow and Leningrad. Why do they not pay the British shareholders who in former years put their money into those municipal undertakings.
I am astounded that the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) should recommend us to extend these facilities to a trading organisation, for it is nothing else, which has gone bankrupt. If that is the idea of high finance in the City of London, I say, God help this country! I have heard a good deal about cold-blooded capitalism on the other side. Surely this exceeds cold - blooded capitalism. Why should we give money to people who have robbed our people and who are engaged all over the world in a propaganda directed against the very existence of this Empire? For the reasons I have stated I hope the hon. Gentleman will stick to his guns and refuse any extension of credit.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I had not intended to say anything in this Debate, but what has occurred since it began impels me to say a word in support of the appeal to the Minister to extend these facilities to Russian trade. I listened with interest to the hon. Baronet the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) putting forward his case on behalf of the fishermen in the far North of Scotland. I would make a similar plea for the miners in the North of England. We who live in the mining districts there know only too well what we have lost by not trading with Russia. I can recall a previous occasion when times were bad and when mothers and children were starving, and the opening of the ports brought prosperity to the North-East
Coast. The present Foreign Secretary declared on one occasion that when we accepted Reparations from other countries we could not prevent some of our countrymen from being hit. Why should we refrain from trading with Russia because we do not agree with the politics of Russia? Their politics are no concern of ours, and we should demur if they interfered with politics here. I want trade with all. I want new markets. Everyone knows that our miners are out of work because of the lack of foreign markets. Time was when 6,000,000 tons of coal went from the North-East ports, coal which came largely from Durham and Northumberland. To-day we reckon the exports in thousands, or less than thousands—probably in hundreds. I believe this trade can be brought back with the assistance of our Government. Despite all that has been said by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), not a penny has been lost by any people who have been trading with Russia during the last five years. Let him ask the great co-operative movement about that. Goods worth thousands of pounds have been sent from co-operative societies here to Russia, and every bill has been honoured. A few years ago, when the coal trade was down and out, one large colliery company in Northumberland took its courage in both hands and exported coal to Russia, in that way keeping its pits going when others were lying idle. It did not lose one penny piece!
We cannot go on cutting off our nose to spite our face. The constituents of the hon. Member for Wycombe are taking no harm; they are not in the position in which my people in Durham and Northumberland find themselves. We are committing one of the greatest crimes which it is possible for legislators to commit; we are starving people. That is what is happening as the result of the stupid policy of trying to avoid trade between one country and another. What matter to us what are Russia's politics? Would any shopkeeper refuse to serve a customer because he held different ideas from his own on politics or on matters of local administration. The shopkeeper would be only too glad to have the trade. Until this country makes up its mind that markets must be found in order to keep our workers busy here, I am afraid, and more than afraid, that their misery
and starvation will continue for some months to come. Suppose we did make a loss on trade with Russia. If as the result of that trade we could set 250,000 miners to work we should save far more money than ever we should lose on our guarantees. I am with the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) in her plea for Ireland, and if the. Government will only keep its mind on the question of credits and forget its political prejudices I am sure that in a short time we shall have better times in England than we have to-day.

Major HILLS: I can reassure the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on one point. He pleaded for the use of Government credit to support our export trade; that is just what this scheme proposes. Credit up to £26,000,000 is set apart for our export trade. But he went on to plead for the use of Government cash as well as Government credit., and I must ask him why the Government should lend cash when the exporter can equally well get the money from his bank upon the Government's insurance of credit? Contract B fills the gap between insurance and finance which existed previously. Under Contract B a banker who lends money upon the bill which the exporter takes, knows that if that bill is protested he will get the money on default.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: From the Government?

Major HILLS: From the Government, so the Government have done a very great thing for the export trade.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member to explain why, if the Government back the exporter's bill, they should not also take the profits of lending that money?

Major HILLS: Because the Government do not want to go into big banking business. It is far more profitable to the Government to let the banks do that business. It is the business of the banks, and the Government would want a very big capital if they embarked on it. My imagination stands appalled at the thought of the Government financing all our export trade. All that we need is to give the man who sells the goods two
securities, first of all that if the man who buys does not pay the Government will pay, and secondly that they will pay as soon as the money becomes due. Then he can go to the bank and get what he requires. That has a very good effect and it applies also to the long term credits. When a man sells a machine or steel or iron or even ships he is often paid by instalments during a period of 2, 2½ or 3½ years. Therefore it is very important that during that time he should be able to get money from the bank. In the old days the companies selling these goods possessed large reserves, and they used to put these bills in their strong box and they stood out of their money; but no company is strong enough to do that at the present time.
I was chairman of the committee which was set up to inquire into this question, and from the report of that committee Contract B originated. I want to pay a tribute to that committee. It was composed of representatives of all aspects of business and finance, and I do not think an abler body of men ever met. I wish to thank them all for the care and skill which they showed in examining into a very difficult subject. We got an agreed report, and one of the terms of that report was that the scheme should come to an end in September, 1929, and therefore I am debarred from pleading for an extension of that date because I consider that, having got that agreed report, I must not urge for an extension.
I wish to point out the magical spread of insurance of credit. Twenty years ago nobody expected that the biggest insurance people in London would be risking large sums in the re-insurance of credit regularly, but that is happening and they are making a profit upon it. This credit insurance has been extended partly through the operation of the Government and; partly by the well known company which has been referred to by the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell). It has spread all over the world and all over Europe, France, Germany, Italy, and even Spain has now got a system in working order. The more the system spreads the more safe it becomes. The great difficulty in insuring credit is that you must have accurate information about the position of the importer and when you can apply to organisations
across the seas and they are in a position to get information about their own national, it is quite clear that the position of the exporters is very greatly strengthened, because they get to know whether the importer is good for the money or not. Nobody would have believed a few years ago that the insurance of such a personal thing as credit was possible, but it shows that insurance can do anything, and it is now one of the big things in modern industry. The system will be extended, and the company referred to, started in the City of London by a very able man, shows that you can insure credit with profit.
When people criticise the Government project and say it is too expensive and contrast it, as the hon. Member for the City of London did, with the fact that it makes a loss, while a public company makes a profit, I ask him to bear in mind the stringent conditions under which export credit is granted. Our system can only guarantee the export of goods, and they must be wholly or mainly of British manufacture. Therefore it can only guarantee on export. The company referred to can guarantee any commercial; transaction or any bargain between two foreign countries, and it need not be export of British manufactures. Moreover, under our system you cannot pay a commission to push a business in the same way as a public company can do. I think we ought to be allowed to pay a commission. I happened to come across the other day one of the most important insurance agents in the City and I asked him why they did not push the facilities granted by the Export Credit Departmbent. He replied, "Why should I push them when you do not pay me anything for doing so." As we have started an undertaking like this, I think we should allow the department to pay commission.
On the question of Russia I stand between two fires. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) or with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on this question. It seems to me that whether we insure credit in Russia or not is purely a matter of terms. So long as we do trade with Russia, I do not see that it is very dishonourable to sell things to Russia and very honourable to buy £13,000,000 worth of goods from Russia. I do not think that there should be a
bar on either of those transactions. But since Contract B has been started, the whole loss will fall on the Government in case there is default on the maturity of the bill. Of course they must go to Russia to collect the money from the Russian Government and that is a very difficult position because we are not at all satisfied about the courts of Russia. I believe a large number of people in this country would like to see the trade of Russia open to our nationals because Russia requires the articles which we can supply, and they happen to be those articles manufactured by the trades in which there is a large amount of unemployment at the present time. Unless you can make certain that you can get paid, of course the risk is very great, but I would like my hon. Friend to make inquiries.
Credit is being insured in the City in the heavy trades over long terms, and so much is this credit now being sought after that I am told that the cover available is taken up three years ahead. I do not put an absolute bar on trade with Russia, but on the other hand I do not want to make a bad bargain for the taxpayer. I believe it might be possible to charge a premium which would make the insurance profitable, and if the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department inquires, I think he will find that this kind of business is being done. An hon. Member opposite said that the firm which has been referred to did not pay on default and only paid when the action had been brought and legal proceedings taken, and that might take two or even three years. The company concerned are now issuing policies payable on default, and so their practice and that of the Export Credits Department are identical.
Just a word or two about the question of expense. I believe you can run this business at a profit, and I do not think you ought to make a loss. I think your loss ratio plus your expenses ought to be inside your premium income. Of course, the more you spread the business and the bigger the premium income is, the smaller the comparative weight of the overhead charges. I hope that this kind of business will spread. I am not sure that this business itself can go to any private company, for it should not be forgotten that it is not a general guarantee of credit; it is only
a guarantee for export trade and a guarantee for the export of British manufactures only, and I do not think any company would undertake that business. I am quite convinced that the system ought not to continue indefinitely, but I am not much impressed with the possibility of persuading any company to take it over. Insurance of credit generally has spread very rapidly in the City, and those insurance managers who first stood aloof in the big offices are now devoting large sums to be the re-insurance of credit, and there is no fear now that the insurance world is not getting its fair share of this new business. I welcome what the Government have done, because they have done something which will be of immense benefit to British trade and especially to those trades that are depressed.

Mr. SHORT: I do not pretend to possess any profound knowledge of the ramifications of financial matters, but I desire to approach this question from a new standpoint. I think we have heard sufficient from the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department and other speakers on both sides of the Committee to warrant our extending our warmest support to the scheme which is now before us. Any doubts that might have existed in my mind were dispersed when I heard the hon. Gentleman foreshadowing that this public development might at some time in the future be handed over to private enterprise, and I am glad to think that the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) indicated, as, indeed, other speakers have indicated, not merely the danger, but the almost impossibility of any private enterprise undertaking carrying out these functions. This scheme originally was mainly for the purpose of facilitating trade, and thereby lessening in some degree the numbers of our unemployed.

Major HILLS: That was the first object.

Mr. SHORT: That was the first and a very substantial object of this scheme; but, while we have resorted to many methods, such as this and the encouragement of trade facilities, unemployment has increased alarmingly, and to-day the figure stands, I think, at over 1,372,000 upon the live registers of our Employment Exchanges. Consequently, there is all the greater reason for giving impetus
and encouragement to this scheme, provided that it will assist in the development of our overseas trade and put more of our unfortunate workpeople who are to-day unemployed into our factories, our mines and our workshops. It is from that point of view that I look at the matter. I would like to emphasize the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett). I would like the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to explain, if he will, why it is necessary to continue the embargo upon the textile trade—to which I understand it is confined—with India and the Far East. I speak with great humility upon these matters, and must admit that I do not know much about them, but when I read in the papers and when I hear in this Chamber that there are thousands of textile workers unemployed, when I learn that attacks are being made on their wages with the object of reducing them, when I find that our great cotton manufacturers have difficulty in maintaining their well-equipped factories, when I read of the poverty of India and of the poverty of the peoples in the Far East, I wonder why it is that we should adopt this policy. Why should we not give them greater encouragement, and extend this scheme so that the peoples of those countries might benefit? It may be that that view is founded upon wrong evidence, and that there is no justification for it; it may be that the policy is perfectly sound; but, as a member of the community who knows very little about these matters, who looks upon them purely from the point of view of the man who is unemployed, and who has experienced unemployment himself for months together, I think we are entitled to ask that some further information might be given upon this embargo so far as India and the Far East are concerned.
I come to Russia. We have listened to a very bitter speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox). It has not been a helpful speech. The hon. and gallant Member may have a grievance. He may represent a handful of people in this country who have a grievance, and their grievance may be a very just one. But, surely, the grievance, no matter how great it may be, of the individual, should not cloud his vision and close his mind
to the great human problem that exists here in this country, with 1,372,000 unemployed and with that number growing, as it was a little while ago, at the rate of 30,000 a week. This is how I look at the problem. I see a population in Russia of some 160,000,000. I believe that they want something which the people of this country can produce, and that they are in a position to buy from us. We have the skill, the capacity, the will and the anxiety to produce the things that Russia requires, and I have yet to learn of any reasonable objection to the extension of this scheme to Russia.
I represent a great industrial constituency, consisting of three towns. The unemployment there is tragic, it is deplorable. I can never go down into that constituency without being moved at the sight of good men wasting their time and their energy, physical and mental, walking the streets. In my constituency they make nuts and bolts, tubes and fittings, pipes, railway wagons, engineering work of all kinds, iron and steel—almost everything of an industrial character is manufactured almost within the boundaries of my great constituency, and we have large numbers of unemployed. They could make the nuts and bolts and all the other things that Russia requires. They could assist in the manufacture, either fully or in part, of the articles that Russia requires. The attitude of the Government on this problem does not create confidence, but hostility, and we all know that, as a result of the policy of His Majesty's Government, orders have passed from this country and gone to Germany or the United States. We know that we have lost orders because of the political hostility that has been displayed towards Russia. While we pursue that course, our own people are unemployed in thousands, and we see the army of unemployed increasing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) talked about gold having been planted in this country, in support, I understand of some orders that were given, but, I would ask, how does the working man look at it? In my constituency, not long ago, a big order from Russia was given and completed. They know that the work came from Russia; they know
that it provided employment; they know that it provided wages. They know that the work was done and sent to Russia, which is all that they are concerned about, and they know, also, that it was paid for. With a practical example like that before their eyes, it is folly for these financiers to split hairs and try to create doubt and suspicion in the minds of the working class. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite really ought to face up to this problem. In this case we are not asking them to trade with Russia, if I understand the principle aright. Reference has been made to the committee of experts, very able and clever men. I have read sufficient about them to be convinced that they know all that there is to be known about finance and its ramifications. We are only asking, if I understand this scheme aright, that they shall have the opportunity of testing the proposition that is put to them. That is all. But they are being denied that opportunity, and yet all around we see poverty increasing, destitution increasing and the army of unemployed increasing.
Surely, we ought to have regard for our own citizens and for the great army of industrial workers, the majority of whom, unhappily, are working for low wages, many of them are working short time, many of them are afraid that they will get the sack. They do not know when that sword is going to fall upon them, and, when they get out of work, many of them will not know whether they are going to get another job; they do not know where to look. In my own constituency, the clerk to the board of guardians tells us that it is no use men from Wednesbury going as far as Birmingham to look for work, because people living in Birmingham will be given preference. They have, he says, been flung off the Employment Exchanges, and find relief through the West Bromwich Board of Guardians. All this kind of thing is going on, and yet we have the Government coming down here with a scheme which they say is a good scheme, which is being fruitful in results, which has assisted and facilitated our trade and commerce; and they say that it is all right to apply it to some countries, but not to the great country of Russia, with its 160,000,000 people who might be taking our agricultural implements and so on and find-
ing work for our people up and down this country. I would beg the hon. Gentleman to try to shake himself free from this political prejudice. If he cannot do so to-night, let him see if he can use his influence with the Cabinet so that this scheme may be extended to Russia, and may provide a little more work, which is so urgently required in this country, so that our people may find employment at remunerative rates and under proper conditions.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I want, first of all, to congratulate the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department on getting the period of operation of this scheme extended. On the last occasion when I raised this matter in the House, his answer was that there would be no extension of the period of the scheme beyond September of next year, but the Prime Minister announced a little later, in July, that there was to be an extension for two years. I am very pleased indeed that that is so, because all who have, studied this scheme have seen that success has attended it in a very considerable measure. What we are concerned with here, however, is the question of the restrictions that the Government have placed upon the scheme—restrictions so far as its scope and the countries included are concerned. It is on that heading that I want to speak. Russia has been mentioned a good deal, but I want to put one or two questions regarding other countries. With regard to India, the little booklet that has been issued tells us that only textiles are excluded from the operation of the scheme. Is that really so? Textiles may be specifically excluded, but in effect are we not excluding everything else, because the booklet tells us it is against the policy of the Department to encourage the granting of longer credits than are customary with the trade of the country concerned. We know that 90 days credit, is in operation with most of our trade with India, and if the policy that is pursued under the scheme means that no longer credit than 90 days can be given to India, it certainly means the exclusion not only of textiles but of everything else. That is the view I take. If there is another view of it the Minister might deal with it. It appears to me that India is being penalised if the 90 days
credit is in operation. There is also the question of interest. We know that a very heavy interest percentage is charged, and that is one of the reasons why we on these benches should like to see Indian trade brought in under the scheme. The booklet also tells us that all countries are included in the scheme with the exception of Russia, India as far as textiles are concerned and the Far Eastern markets. Is Rumania included? Because she has been excluded, and if the booklet is up to date we may take it that Rumanian trade is brought under the purview of the scheme. I do not know whether it is or not and I should like the Minister to tell us.
We have been told that Russia has a favourable trade balance with us. Last year in round figures we bought from Russia £13,000,000 and she bought from ns £2,000,000, and therefore she has a balance of £11,000,000 with which she could trade in those things that she needs, particularly agricultural implements. But this trade balance is not held by the people who would trade with us under the scheme. That is the trouble. We are not asking, as some hon. Members seem to think, for something for the Russian Government. It is not the Russian Government that is trading with us. It is not even the Russian people we are asking it for. The credit guarantees are not for Russia, or even for Russian traders, but for British traders who may have potential customers whose stability will bear investigation and who with the help of the credit may place orders in this country. So that it is merely talking round the subject to say we will not give to Russia for this and the other reason, or we will not even give it to the Russian people. It is not the Russian people we are asking it for, but the traders in this country and our own unemployed.
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) gave as a reason why we should not extend the scheme to traders with Russia in this country that the Russian Government has not met her debts. I do not see Russia in the same light as he does at all. He says it is a great example of an attempt to establish nationalisation. What I see in Russia is a country which was for centuries 200 years behind every other race
in Europe. I see in the Russian nation an example of die-hard Conservatism. It stood rigid until it broke and it has to be built up anew, and it has gone and is still going through an agony. To talk about us on these benches being concerned with the Russian people building up a system of nationalisation because we believe in it is simply talking nonsense. What we are concerned with is the unemployed in this country. I would ask the hon. Member to examine his own conscience in the matter. We are often told from those benches not to allow politics to enter into industry. What is it that is preventing us from trading with Russia but politics? It is politics that is depriving the unemployed of work that could be had from Russian orders, and nothing else. That is the obstacle and we want it overcome. Do we want a settlement of the debt question, which seems to be such a bugbear with some hon. Members opposite? If we do why do we not negotiate? She has asked us to negotiate upon a certain basis. If that basis is not right let us try to have another. They are quite eager to get the thing settled. They have said quite plainly that, provided we are ready to take certain offsets, they will do the same, and they will sit round a table and settle the matter.
I know the Minister is very greatly interested and active in this question of the credit guarantee scheme. I should like him, after his success in getting the Government to extend the period, to put forward efforts for a bolder policy with regard to the scope of this Measure. I have spoken at least half-a-dozen times about the Tyneside and the possibility of orders for ships. Three times I have had the Blue Book of the Russian Mercantile Marine, showing that they are 1,800 ships short in the Baltic and the Caspian. They are working this trade with ships 30 and 40 years old, and there are responsible people there, not the Russian Government, but stable houses which would trade with our country if they were given the benefit of this scheme. Eighteen hundred ships short, and we are waiting for orders and our people are drawing unemployed benefit. Cannot there be some attempt to get this question of Russian debts and the disability the Russian nation is under wiped out so that we can open up trade with that great country and bring employment to our
people? I think the Government is standing in its own light. I am sure if a Labour Government comes into power at the next election the credits guaranteed scheme will be extended. We will take risks, and the Government ought to take risks. A bold policy is necessary, having regard to the fact that the unemployment figures are not diminishing but are getting greater and greater. The Government in its own interest ought to try to get the matter satisfactorily settled.

Mr. HACKING: The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), who takes a very big interest in the scheme, asked what kind of goods we had insured. The answer is all goods that are wholly or partly, manufactured in the United Kingdom. None except those laid down in the small handbook are excluded. We include coal. The hon. Member asks if we have any classification of goods that are to be insured. We have no classification by goods up to date, and I do not think the considerable work involved would justify the expenditure. Then he asked whether we insured large and small amounts alike. We make no distinction from this point of view at all. We treat all alike, and many bills which I have actually seen myself have been for less amounts even than £50. The hon. Member also asked for the number of refusals by the Advisory Committee.

Mr. LUNN: My point was how many applications have been granted and not taken up?

Mr. HACKING: I cannot give an answer without notice. In the early days there were certainly a large number when we had the sanctions system in operation, but now it is a very small number. The hon. Member asks the amount of salaries paid in the Department. In the financial year 1925 it was £12,600, in 1926, £12,300, and in 1927, £16,000. At present it is about £22,000. Of course, the Committee must take into consideration the increased volume of business, which necessitates a larger staff. The number of staff in 1925 was about 35 to 40, in 1927, 61; and in 1928, 73. That includes everyone, including cleaners and messengers. The hon. Member asked about the loss on the Advances Scheme which was in operation in 1921. It amounted to over £1,000,000. The loss on the first
guaranteed scheme, which started in 1921, is estimated at about £31,000,

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a total guarantee of what?

Mr. HACKING: I could not give that without notice. I should think, from memory, about £3,000,000 to about £4,000,000. The hon. baronet the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) naturally asked about the herring industry, about which he is anxiously concerned. The Scottish herring is exported in large quantities to the Baltic Ports and we are open to consider such business, but very few application have actually been received. When such applications are received we will certainly give them our careful consideration.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to Russia?

Mr. HACKING: Not necessarily to Russia. Russia would be excluded. I was also asked to give the names of the members of the Advisory Committee. It is rather a long list. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will allow me to circulate it, and save time now.

Mr. LUNN indicated assent.

Mr. HACKING: The hon. Member for Rothwell also asked one other question about the position of the Advisory Committee, about the changes that were effected from time to time. The Committee was appointed in 1926 for this new scheme and it contained several members of the old Committee, and one or two leading business men with very special knowledge have been added since that time. The hon. and gallant Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) who is not in his place just now asked about the cost of administration. That is the reason for setting up this Committee of Experts. He asked whether the cost of office accommodation was included in the estimate of annual loss made by the Estimates Committee. The answer is, that all the cost of office accommodation and everything else is included in the loss. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) spoke of an insurance company—he did not mention the name, but I think I know the insurance company of which he
was talking—doing our form of credit insurance. He is not quite accurate. No company is providing the facilities which we are providing, and which are being demanded by the traders of this country. I need not go into details, especially when my hon. Friend is not in his place, but one difference was dealt with by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett). He said that these outside companies do earn a profit. That is quite true. The outside companies to which he was referring have earned some profits, but the question is that the company, the one I am speaking about, does not confine itself to our form of business. It has many other kinds of business, such as domestic business, which I understand may be about 60 per cent. of the total, import business, and it has purely foreign business, Japanese bills on America and other business of that kind, and consequently with a large business of that kind, widely spread, it is more inclined to make a profit than we are with restricted business. The hon. Member for the City of London said that we should not quote terms to undercut a private company. We do not know exactly what are the quotations of any other company, but I can assure him that we are not deliberately trying to undercut any other company, and naturally would not try to prevent them doing business.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that if the Minister or whoever runs this Department found that they could do business profitably at a certain price, and get plenty of business on those terms, that if they were undercutting some private concern they would raise their rates at once?

Mr. HACKING: Oh, no, we are not deliberately undercutting. We were charged this afternoon with deliberately undercutting private enterprise. That is not our intention. We work on our own quite independently. We do not know whether we are undercutting, because we do not know their quotations. The hon. Member for Finsbury asked me to review the extension of the scheme to India and the Far East. I said in my opening remarks that we have had no demand brought to our notice for this extension,
but I repeat that if there should be a considerable demand we will try to meet it. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) made some suggestions which he had also sent to me in writing in connection with the wide distribution of booklets and other literature. We realise the great importance of advertising, and that had already received consideration before I received his letter. Nevertheless, we are very grateful for his suggestion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked why we should not advance the money to exporters instead of the banks doing so. All I can say to him—and I am sure he will agree with me when I say it—is that he would not be satisfied with anything less than the nationalisation of the banks, and that is what his scheme would amount to.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It would not be until I had a Civil Service to take them over.

Mr. HACKING: Yes, and that is nationalisation of the banks. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) asked why we did not extend the scheme to India and the Far East as far as textiles are concerned. I gave a long explanation and made a statement, and if he will do me the honour to-morrow to read what I said I hope he will be satisfied.

Mr. SHORT: The hon. Member says that there is no demand. Is there likely to be a demand if it is the intention that this scheme shall not be extended to India as far as textiles are concerned? Will he intimate that the embargo is lifted, and that any demands that come along will be considered?

Mr. HACKING: What the hon. Member has described as an embargo was placed on the scheme at the request of people specially interested in this trade. If they ask for the embargo to be raised, we shall undoubtedly reconsider the whole position. We do not want to hinder any trade. We are anxious to help it. The hon. Member for Newcastle East (Mr. Connolly) asked if there was a limit to this credit, and the answer to that is that each case is dealt with on its merits,
up to five years as far as the heavy industries are concerned, and otherwise in accordance with the customs of particular countries, and up to six months with regard to textiles. In fact, I think that we have done trade with India up to 12 months credit. Not under Contract B; there has been no business under Contract B. All these cases are dealt with on their merits by the Advisory Committee who work most efficiently and go into consideration of every case that is brought before them.
The hon. Member also asked, "Is Rumania included in the scheme?" There is no exclusion of Rumania, and there again every case which is brought to our notice, any request which is made for the extension of the scheme in Rumania will be attended to. Each individual case will be dealt with strictly on its merits. Rumania is not debarred. I think I have answered all the questions which have been put to me, but before I sit down I would like to say this in connection with the assistance we have had from various parts of the country, that the banks have been specially helpful to us not only in London but also in the provinces. All the big banks have welcomed Contract B, and they believe that it will be of assistance to them. I would like to thank them for the great assistance which they have given to us in the past, and particularly to thank them for their assistance with regard to Contract B. I hope that they will find it useful to themselves, and in finding it useful to themselves that it will be of great assistance to the export trade and to the country as a whole.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Has the hon. Gentleman anything to say with regard to Russian trade?

Mr. HACKING: It has been discussed so very much this afternoon and answers have been given—I have already given an answer in my original speech—that I did not think it necessary to say anything more about Russia. I can only repeat that Russia will be debarred from the scheme.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.

CLASS VI.

DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade, including a Grant-in-Aid of the Imperial Institute.

Mr. HACKING: This is purely a token Vote. The necessity for the Supplementary Estimate is in connection with an extension of the British Industries Fair. The financial procedure of this House lays it down that if we are to spend more money we must ask permission to do so, in spite of the fact that the net result will probably mean a great saving to the country. We shall probably get a great deal more from the letting of the space than it will cost us to let the space. The result of this Supplementary Estimate will mean that the State will be the gainer.

Mr. LUNN: I think the Minister might have told us something about the Imperial Institute. There has been a great charge in the government of the Imperial Institute.

Mr. HACKING: This has nothing to do with the Imperial Institute; it relates to the British Industries Fair. The heading has to be the same as the heading of the main Vote. That is the reason why the name of the Imperial Institute is used. There is nothing in this Supplementary Estimate which deals with the Imperial Institute.

Mr. LUNN: As the Resolution was read out from the Chair the Imperial institute was mentioned, and I understood that the Minister was dealing with the Imperial Institute. As the Vote is connected with the British Industries Fair, the Minister might have taken advantage of this opportunity to give publicity to the Fair. As I understand it, the Fair is developing year after year. More space is needed every year
for the Fair and more traders are taking part in it. It would be interesting to know, not only the amount of space but the different industries which are taking part in the Fair. The Minister might have told us whether the Fair is being carried on without a loss. Moreover, the Fair is so important in connection with the advertising of the various industries that we might consider whether there is any method of improving it in the interests of traders and in the interests of the general public as a whole. As a visitor to the Fair I have felt that it would be much better if goods were sold at the Fair. At the present time, that is not so. Innumerable articles are on exhibition at the Fair which are not yet in the shops and it would be an advantage to the people who visit the Fair if they could have an opportunity of making purchases there. I wish the Government had taken advantage of the opportunity to have a permanent place for such an exhibition in connection with Government Departments. They might have done very well by having a place like the White City for the holding of permanent exhibitions of this kind. I hope there will be a stall at the Fair which will devote itself to advertising. There is plenty of room for improvements in advertising in this country and a Fair of this description affords an opportunity for extensions and improvements in that direction. The Fair is well worth holding and I do not in any way object to the Vote

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn). While I agree that the British Industries Fair is a very good thing, I object to it being held year after year in Birmingham. I notice that the Secretary of State for the Dominions is present at this rather unusual hour. This is an unusual subject to bring him here. I could understand the President of the Board of Trade or the Foreign Secretary being here, seeing that the Minister in charge of the Overseas Trade Department is responsible to the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade. Why is the Secretary of State for the Dominions here? Is it to see that there is no weakening of the Department towards the city of Birmingham? Why
should Birmingham always have this Fair? The object of the Fair is not for us to sell to each other but to attract foreign buyers. The attempt is to copy the famous Leipzig Fair, and I hope we shall be even more successful than Leipzig. The nearest central point to the continent of Europe is the city of Hull.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member apparently forgets that this is a Supplementary Estimate. It is on the original Estimate that the policy of the Fair must be discussed. The only point that arises now is why the extra money is wanted.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I shall keep strictly within the limits of order. If we are bound to have the Fair in Birmingham, why not spend the extra £11,000 on extra space in a secondary exhibition in some other city? I only mentioned Hull because it is most convenient for the Continental markets. Why should not Glasgow, Sheffield and Manchester have their turn? There might be two or three fairs running at the same time. I am told that this has been considered. Instead of spending money on extra space in Birmingham, I would have liked to have seen the money spent in a preliminary survey of suitable buildings in other cities. I do not like to see this very close estimating. The original Estimate was for £73,000 and the Appropriations-in-Aid £145,930. Were these Appropriations-in-Aid in connection with the British Industries Fair? If so, quite apart from the fillip given to British commerce, we made an actual profit. If we are making money, I should like to extend the operation. I am all for Government enterprise that makes money, and if it competes with private enterprise, that does not disturb me in the least. If we are making money out of Government enterprise, I want to extend that enterprise, not only for making money, but for training a commercialised civil service for the purpose of nationalising interests in this country.

Mr. HACKING: We are not making money; we are holding our own. There has been £25,000 spent for advertising. This Supplementary Estimate has nothing whatever to do with Birmingham. Birmingham pays for its own Fair. This is the City of London Fair. Birmingham pays for her own fair, except as far as advertising is concerned.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: If that is the case, I apologise; I misunderstood the position. Would it be possible for Birmingham to hold the Fair without the aegis of the Overseas Department? Would it be possible for Leeds to start a fair without the approval of the Overseas Trade Department?

Mr. HACKING: If Hull wishes to hold a fair of this kind, the application will receive consideration, but it is very bad policy to spread your industries fairs all over the country. You will not get foreign business men to attend them all, and it is much better to concentrate in one or two centres. Birmingham has taken a very big building—I am afraid I am entirely out of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not adhering very closely to the Vote.

Mr. HACKING: I am afraid I am out of order. I was led away by the hon. and gallant Member. Perhaps he will talk with me privately about it. The original Estimate was based on the assumption that 280,000 square feet would be let in London and we have already let 287,115 feet. We have exceeded the amount under the old Estimate and that is the reason why we are acting for this advance. We hope that before February, when the fair is opened, there will be at least 325,000 square feet let in connection with the London fair.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member has answered all my questions except one. He did not really explain the Appropriations-in-Aid. He says that the fair pays for itself except for the advertising. Does that mean that we are only losing the advertising and that the rest is self supporting?

Mr. HACKING: Yes. It only costs us £25,000 in advertising. The reason why it appears a little difficult to understand is that none of the other Sub-heads are put in the Supplementary Estimate except Sub-head E1. If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the main Estimate he will see the various Subheads set out in E1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and there is a large sum of money which goes to balance the Appropriations-in-Aid.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS II.

COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EAST SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants-in-Aid.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I do not think I need detain the Committee for more than a few moments in asking for their sympathetic consideration of this Supplementary Vote. Hon. Members will remember that in September last a hurricane of almost unprecedented violence struck the Leeward Islands and passed on working havoc in Guadalupe and Porto Rico and to some extent in the Bahamas and the Jamaica Dependencies. The damage done in the French and American possessions was very generously dealt with in France and America, and, in the case of jamaica and the Bahamas, the local governments were able to deal with their own distress and the loss of government property. The case of the Leeward Islands, however, is rather different. They have hardly recovered from the disastrous hurricane of 1924, and they experienced the full severity of this second hurricane. They lost something like 50 to 60 lives, while a great deal of loss was inflicted upon individual members of their community. That particular aspect of the loss has been largely covered by public and private generosity in every part of the Empire.
The West Indian Committee raised over £3,000 in this country; other West Indian governments contributed £7,500, and Canada, which of recent years has taken a close interest in the West Indies, contributed through a fund organised by Mr. T. B. Macaulay, a wealthy Canadian, who has given many benefactions in the Leeward Islands, a sum of over £15,000, of which the Dominion Parliament gave £5,000. About £27,000 has been raised for the relief of private distress in the Leeward Islands, and as far as the Government estimates show, that ought really to cover pretty closely all the private suffering of the unfortunate inhabitants. At the same time,
however, there was very heavy damage, relatively speaking, to Government property. The poorhouse at Antigua and the Dominica, infirmary were destroyed, and other public buildings, roads, telephone services and jetties were destroyed, the total damage to Government property amounting to a sum of £30,000 in Dominica and £15,000 in the Leeward Islands. With their slender reserves and many losses their governments could not afford to find the whole of that loss, and therefore about one-third, £15,000, is being voted by this Supplementary Estimate, £10,000 to Dominica, half of which is a free gift and half as a loan, free of interest to be repaid when Dominica is in a position to repay, and £5,000 to the other Leeward Islands. The Supplementary Estimate is brought before the Committee in the hope that it will give sympathetic assistance to these old British Colonies which have been once more hard hit by misadventure as well as by changes in economic conditions. I feel confident that this small Vote will meet with the hearty approval of every section in the House.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I do not understand how this money is going to be distributed, particularly in Dominica. Dominica has had rather a curious history. Money has been raised in the past on account of hurricanes. There was a large sum raised by the Lord Mayor in the early part of last Session to pay for the damage done to the inhabitants, and it was decided by the Government of the Island that it could best apply it by rebuilding the gaol. I understand they are going to rebuild the infirmary this time, and one or two other Government buildings which have been destroyed. I should like to know if any part of the sum is really going in aid of private suffering?

Mr. AMERY: I thought I had made it quite clear that private suffering is covered completely by benefactions from this country, from the other West Indies and from Canada, and that this particular estimate is a contribution to the Governments of Dominica and the other Leeward Islands to meet the destruction of Government property.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be quite
satisfied that private losses have been amply covered by other benefactions?

Mr. AMERY: They have been covered—

Sir R. HAMILTON: Amply?

Mr. AMERY: The Government estimated the total private loss at about £28,000, and the amount already contributed—there is something still more to come in from Canada—is about £27,000.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Then the distribution of this money, I take it, will be left entirely to the local government in Dominica? Or will the Home Government exercise any control over the distribution?

Mr. AMERY: I think that the Governor will naturally consult me as to the way in which it is to be spent.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think that all my friends here are quite prepared to support this expenditure. We welcome the voting of this comparatively small sum—small compared with our huge annual Budget—in helping poorer Dependencies and Crown Colonies. Even if it be a case of rebuilding the poor-house and the infirmary, if that relieves the rates and taxes of the locality, so much the better. I am delighted to find myself in such sympathy and agreement with the Colonial Secretary. Having said that, I ask him to let me know when we are to get a grant of a similar kind to cover losses due to an earthquake in Palestine.

Mr. AMERY: I do not know whether I am in order in dealing with Palestine now, but I can say that the revenue of Palestine is sufficient to deal with that case.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to get out of order, but this is a new service for the relief of distress caused by an act of God, and I wish to refer to another act of God which has not been relieved.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot go outside the actual terms of the Supplementary Estimate before the Committee. If he wishes to ask questions about other acts of God he must put them on the Question Paper.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: On page 8 there is reference to a Grant-in-Aid for Antigua, St. Kitts, Nevis, and so forth. Suppose that one of those Virgin Islands had been left out of this relief, should I not have been in order in asking why no relief had been granted to them?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman would not have been in order.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS I.

GOVERNMENT CHEMIST.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Government Chemist.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): This Supplementary Estimate is for the purpose of providing a small additional staff for the Government chemist, who carries out the analyses for the other Departments. This chemist looks after such things as the adulteration of food, the assessment of drawback on export dutiable goods, and questions about such goods as may not be dutiable and ingredients in goods that are imported into England and are dutiable. In addition to that, the Finance Act of 1928 imposed on the Government chemist staff a large amount of additional work. No fewer than 10,000 extra analyses were made in respect of the Oil Duty. The change relating to the Sugar Duties also entailed greater work on the staff. We have taken steps to economise in this Department and have reduced the expenditure in many ways. The scale of sampling has been reviewed; there has been a reorganisation of the staff; several branches have been drawn under one directorate; and there have been considerable economies in working. These economies, however, have not been found sufficient to meet all the extra costs of the staff required, and therefore I ask for this Supplementary Vote.

Mr. E. BROWN: I rather suspect that behind this innocent looking Vote there is an interesting story. I rather suspect that this small Estimate is due to the
haste of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the last few years, when we have been fighting elections, we have all been inundated with requests from motor-car users to change the horse-power tax to a petrol tax. That change was always refused until this year. This year the reasons previously given against the change were scrapped by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who came down to the House thinking he had solved what had been to the Treasury hitherto an insoluble problem—how to get a chemical frontier inside the light hydro-carbon oils which it would not be possible to evade. In the old days our constituents asked us "Will you support a petrol tax as against a horse-power tax?" I remember that at Rugby, in 1923, that question was put to me and I replied, "I do not advise you to ask for it, because you will find yourselves saddled with both taxes." That has been the case.
The Treasury has been worrying for years, as I have stated, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House and said, "We have solved all that. We will give the motor user both taxes, but we shall not have to worry about the chemical front, because we will now cut our frontier not vertically but horizontally between the heavy oils and the light oils." The Chancellor was in too much of a hurry; he was a month too soon, for he failed to recognise that inside the great sale of light hydrocarbon oils were great numbers of consumers, especially women, who were interested in using paraffin. He had to come down and face again a problem which has not yet been solved. Seeing that the Government chemist is dealing with samples and there have been many more samples in the last year for him to analyse, I suspect that the bulk of this £1,600 is to go for extra expert advice as to the finding of an accurate chemical frontier for the Oil Duty—a frontier which will not be evadable. Is this £1,600 an additional salary for an expert chemist, or more than one, or is it provided for overtime worked by other chemists inside the Department, in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may, inside this financial year, have a chemical frontier for these oils which it will not be possible to evade? Is this chemist the outpost of the frontier?
The Chancellor's first Estimate was that he would get from the oil taxes £18,000,000, and now he is to lose £3,500,000 of that. Have the investigations of the chemists resulted in showing that the receipts will be above or below what was estimated? It is strange that on the original Estimate of £64,000, which was voted for this Department, the Financial Secretary should now have to come down and demand another £1,600. I hope for the revenue's sake that I am wrong, but I shrewdly suspect that the mass of the extra work for which this Vote is required has been due to the Chancellor's haste in thinking that he has solved the problem to which I have referred.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I believe much of this extra expenditure is due to the Government's fiscal policy. I believe a great deal of it is due to the policy of hampering British trade by putting tariffs on imported dyestuffs or prohibiting imported dyestuffs. I do not know the exact extent of the list of fine chemicals taxed but I believe it runs into hundreds, and all this has been done in an attempt to bolster up the British chemical industry. That is a very wealthy industry, now entirely rationalised and trustified, and in no need of such assistance. The duties on chemicals alone would account for this extra expenditure. The duty on dyestuffs alone would account for it, and the Silk Duty may also account for some of it, and then, of course, there is the Petrol Duty to which the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has referred. I am opposed to all these duties, especially when they are introduced in an underhand way, little by little. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury in his place. He has told us how a full measure of Protection can be brought in by "driblets," so that the people may get used to it. There is a Chinese torture known as the "death of the thousand cuts." A skilled executioner can deal the victim a thousand cuts taking off a finger with one cut, a piece of the ear with another and so on and the victim only dies after a long time and in great pain. That is how Protection is being introduced. It is the policy of the thousand cuts—the 900
taxes on fine chemicals, dyestuffs, and so forth. Incidentally, may I say that in this matter the pass was sold by the Coalition Liberals who allowed the Coalition majority to put a duty on dyestuffs or worse than a duty, the horrible system of licenses. All this has to be paid for by the taxpayer as a consumer, and he is now called upon to pay for it directly in the cost of extra staff. Therefore I shall not allow this Vote to pass without protest.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. SAMUEL: I think I am in the fortunate position of being able to gratify the wishes and hopes of both the hon. Members who have spoken. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) expressed the hope that he might be wrong in what he said. I am glad to be able to gratify his wish on that point. This extra sum of £1,600 is not intended to provide an outpost sentry on any horizontal or vertical frontier. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or diagonal."] This is a very simple straightforward proposal. The amount is required for staff to do, work which, in some degree, has been correctly described by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). The main reasons for which the staff is required are these. There is, first, work of examination in connection with the Revenue Department—it may be in connection with alcohol, or it may be in connection with smuggling—and there is also the examination of foods in reference to adulteration. Examinations are, of course, necessary to determine whether imported articles are dutiable, and the extent to which they contain dutiable ingredients. After all, Government Departments have to carry out the law. The work also includes the assessment of drawbacks on goods exported, but the main cause for the extra staff is in respect of the oil duties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We make no secret about it.

Mr. BROWN: May I ask then, does the right hon. Gentleman say that I am wrong? I suggested that this Vote arose from the very ticklish problem of finding that frontier in regard to the oils, and it seems to me I am right. I would ask again, are the Government satisfied that a satisfactory chemical frontier has been found for the purpose of this duty.

Mr. SAMUEL: Things change from day to day, and one can never know what fresh invention may take place and what fresh investigation may be necessary but there is no doubt about this fact—that the new oil duties have imposed extra work upon the staff. As I say, the law has to be carried out. It is also to be remembered that we altered the sugar duties for the benefit of the consumer, and in that connection certain investigations have to be made. For all these purposes more staff is required. As I have explained a large amount of economy was found possible, but not enough to cover the extra amount required.

Mr. BROWN: I cannot express myself as satisfied with the Financial Secretary's statement. He started by giving me a direct negative, but it seems to me that he contradicted himself and admitted the whole case which I have put forward, namely, that the whole of this work is connected with the difficult, complicated and delicate problem hitherto found insoluble by the chemists working for the Treasury, namely, the provision of a limit inside the range of light hydrocarbon oils. The Committee are entitled to a definite answer as to the progress which is being made in finding that frontier. The right hon. Gentleman dropped another hint which reminds me that I saw in the newspaper recently that a new device has been invented for applying crude oils to motor lorries. What effect will that invention have on the administration of these duties on light hydrocarbon oils, and in consequence upon the estimates of the Chancellor? When the duty was brought in it was a fluid duty, but it seems to be more fluid now than, it was when it was brought in first. I believe the Chancellor has not got that frontier which will be satisfactory from the revenue point of view as a basis of the great scheme of de-rating, and I propose to support the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in his Amendment.

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Gentleman has not replied to my question as to whether this additional cost is due to the appointment of additional permanent
staff additional temporary staff, or overtime payments to existing staff. In particular, I should like him to tell us whether this represents a permanent addition to the working costs of this Department, or if it is simply a temporary expansion to meet a sudden development of work which will be non-recurring in its nature.

Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed that the staff is wanted for actual analyses of samples, and not in order to advise as to a new frontier.

Mr. MAXTON: Are they permanent appointments?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think so. I am not sure, however.

Mr. MAXTON: On the established service?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think so.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does that mean that on and after this date we can look forward to this estimate being increased by this amount owing to the fact that you have engaged a certain extra permanent staff?

Sir R. HAMILTON: If this extra staff has been appointed to take the large number of analyses that are necessary, and if they are going to be permanent, does that mean that they are going to be permanently engaged on trying to solve this Problem? Are they really going to be permanently on the staff to take extra analyses, or will they only be temporary for the purpose of inquiring into this oil question?

Mr. SAMUEL: At present the staff is temporary, but it may become permanent if it is wanted. We do not know yet whether they will be wanted for any length of time. What they are doing is to examine samples as they come in, and we require two chemists and five laboratory assistants for this work. If what we need them for comes to an end, then these gentlemen will no longer be required.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand that these chemists are not on the permanent staff and that you will discharge them as soon as this particular bit of work is concluded?

Mr. SAMUEL: They are serving temporarily. They are employed as long as they may be wanted, and when they are no longer wanted, the arrangement is that they will be engaged no longer.

Mr. BROWN: The fact is, therefore, that the possibility of evasion because of the alteration made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer inside the light oils is such that it may be that the Government will have to keep two chemists and five laboratory assistants perpetually at work trying to detect the inventions which are trying to evade the tax.

Question, "That £1,500 be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS V.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £559,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the payment of Old Age Pensions, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for Pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920.

Mr. SAMUEL: There is always a difficulty in estimating the numbers of old age pensioners, and a relatively small variation of numbers has a great effect on the amount of money required. It was estimated that on the 1st April, 1928, there would be 996,000 pensioners who would draw old age pensions under the Acts of 1908 and 1924, that there would be 281,000 pensioners drawing pensions under the Act of 1925, and that 174,000 new pensioners would begin to draw pensions in the course of the year. After allowing for the numbers of deaths, the total estimated increase was 34,500. That was the estimated amount, hut we found that there was a larger number of all classes than we anticipated, and when the figures became actual on the 1st April, 1928, we found the financial year began with an increase over the estimate of 8,000 persons. Since the 1st April, there has been an influx of new pensioners, which has exceeded the estimate, and as the high rate of increase seems likely to continue, we think the number of pensioners will be 203,000 as against the original estimate of 174,500.
We estimate, therefore, that there will be an increase of 8,000 for the whole year and during the year a gradually increasing number of 28,000 new entrants. Allowing for adjustments owing to death, we are of opinion that the sum of £550,000 would be required.
The other £9,000 is for the local committees. Under the Act of 1908 the expenses of local committees up to an amount allowed by the Treasury had to he defrayed by sums provided by Parliament. The cost of this committee work has fallen of late years because the number of claims and questions dealt with has become smaller, but the decrease has not been as rapid as we had hoped, and an extra £9,000 is required this year to examine these claims, which as a matter of fact, operate in no small degree to the benefit of pensioners themselves, because the committee help the pensioners to establish their claims.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have no objection to the increase in the expenditure on the pensions committees, but I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that this increase is due entirely to the increased number of pensioners over and above the estimate. The hon. Gentleman may say that this applies to Scotland, but even if Scotland, through the Scottish Board of Health, actually deals with the question of pensions, the investigations are carried out by the Customs and Excise Department, and I say that, quite apart from the question of the numbers, which I know must increase, I think there is a great deal of unnecessary investigation carried out by this Department. In my own city I have nothing but complaints against the people who first of all carry out these investigations, and I would like the hon. Gentleman, who is very keen on economy, to direct his mind to this problem. Could there not be a saving in this expenditure? Even allowing for the increased number of pensions, it seems to me that the increase would not be so great if the Customs and Excise officers were less cheese-paring and would accept the statements of the claimants more reasonably rather than make unnecessary investigations into those claims.
I have had considerable experience of these people. When I first entered the House, I was told that these pensions
were under the Ministry of Health and the Board of Health, but my experience is that they are under the Customs and Excise, and many of those who carry out investigations are women. We spend State money on unnecessary investigations, and I have complaints of the shockingly mean way in which the investigators apply various methods to find out if the pensioner has a pound or two in the Savings Bank or in a co-operative society or invested in war loan or corporation stock. In these days, when non-contributory pensions are given to a person under insurance, instructions might be given by the hon. Gentleman in order to save time in these investigations. Considerable savings might be made if these people would not be so mean and petty in their investigations, but tried to raise the claim of the pensioner above the charity basis into which it sometimes degenerates. I ask the hon. Gentleman to make inquiries, and to see if inspectors could not save some money by making their investigations more humane and more reasonable. I am convinced that this estimate is large, not merely because of the extra claims, but because the inspectors are unnecessarily harsh in their investigations.

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Gentleman has asked me if this Vote refers to Scotland. Yes, it does. I have taken note of what he has said about unnecessary investigations, and I will make it my business to inquire into that. If he will give me cases where undue pressure has been put on people, I will take steps to see that they are not repeated.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS I.

THE MINT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage, and the Expenses of the preparation of Medals, Dies for Post-age and other Stamps, and His Majesty's Seals.

Mr. SAMUEL: The fineness of our silver coinage was reduced in 1920 from.925 to.500. The reason for this change
in the coinage in the content of silver was this. For the first time in many generations the bullion value of silver coin on being melted was greater than the face value of the coin. We have therefore arranged to melt down the.925 coins and issue.500 in their place. This year a greater amount of silver coin has come in for recoinage than we had anticipated. We had anticipated £3,000,000, as will be seen on page 5 of the White Paper, and our revised estimate is for £2,500,000 more. As a matter of fact, no charge will fall upon the public, purse although the token vote of £100 is necessary owing to the larger withdrawal of the coins, and the increase of appropriations-in-aid. I ant bound to present these figures, and let the Committee know what is going on. The result of the recoinage will be that all the expenses will be paid, and although I cannot commit myself to the actual figures, I think that a sum of somewhere in the neighbourhood of £400,000 will eventually come into the public purse as the result of these operations.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I do not quite understand whether it was intended to call in all the silver of the higher denominations gradually, and debased on this system gradually, and so make a large profit to the Treasury until we have got it all down to the.500 level.

Mr. SAMUEL: The Act of 1920 answers my hon. Friend's question. The fineness of our silver currency was reduced by the Coinage Act of 1920. The whole of it has not yet been called in, but as it comes in, it will be dealt with in accordance with the Act of 1920.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS III.

LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland, and Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries.

Motion made, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Commander Eyres Mansell.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us when he intends to move the Resolution, Appellate Jurisdiction [Salaries and Pensions].

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Mansell): Some time this week.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow: Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes after Nine o'Clock.